beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from July 16, 2018 to July 9, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 2, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to set the amount of KRW 200,000,000 for the sub-lease deposit (contract amounting to KRW 20,000,000,000 for the remainder of KRW 180,000 for the contract, the remainder of KRW 180,000 for the remainder of KRW 180,000 for the contract), the monthly rent of KRW 19,00,000 for the contract period from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the amount of KRW 20,000 for the sub-lease deposit as the down payment.
B. In concluding the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to deliver the said store after completing the interior work by July 10, 2015, so that the Plaintiff may run the main store in the instant store.
C. However, the Defendant did not complete the interior construction of the instant store even until July 10, 2015, and the Plaintiff completed the interior construction work by August 17, 2015 to the Defendant around August 30, 2015 and changed the delivery of the instant store.
A. After completing the interior construction of the instant store on February 2016, the Defendant sent a certificate of content to the effect that “Around that time, the said store was sub-leased to a third party.” Around April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff, even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to sub-let the instant store, by deceiving the Plaintiff, and then deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 20,000.
In addition, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office filed a complaint against the Defendant for fraud. On October 28, 2016, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office requested the Defendant to request in advance the balance of the deposit that the Plaintiff would incur difficult financial resources after the contract of this case, but rejected the request, and at the time of the contract, the Defendant confirmed and made a statement that the Defendant had the ability to perform the interior works, and the money the Defendant received from the Plaintiff was used as the basic cost of removal for performing the interior works and the rent for the store of this case.