beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 110,585,00 and KRW 585,00 among them.
Reasons
1. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to substitute the above lease deposit (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) with the head of Sung-nam-si Office Office 3059 (hereinafter “the instant building”). The lease agreement concluded between February 20, 2016 and February 20, 2018, with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 110 million, and the lease agreement concluded between February 20, 2016 and February 20, 2018.
However, the defendant does not pay a total of KRW 110,585,000, such as the lease deposit in this case and the long-term repair appropriations for the plaintiff's expenditures to be borne by the defendant, and the plaintiff is claiming the defendant to pay the above KRW 110,585,00 and damages for delay.
2. The defendant's defense prior to the merits was proved to the effect that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed not to file an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the defendant's defense is without merit.
3. The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the instant lease contract with respect to the cause of the claim; the Plaintiff paid KRW 415,250,000 as long-term repair appropriations for the instant building on February 19, 2018; KRW 130,00,00 for the repair costs of air conditioners owned by the Defendant; and KRW 40,00 for the heating boiler repair costs of the instant building; and the Plaintiff moved from the instant building to another place around March 27, 2018, and notified the Defendant of the password of the corrective device of the instant building, after being moved to the other place, can be recognized by each entry in the evidence of subparagraphs A and 8, and the entire purport of the pleadings. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant lease contract expired, and the Plaintiff transferred the instant building to the Defendant on March 27, 2018.
(The defendant is disputing the date of delivery, and the above argument contains no damages for delay until delivery). Therefore, the defendant is entitled to the lease deposit to the plaintiff.