beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from January 23, 2013 to August 25, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 8, 2007, the Plaintiff leased a house located in Nam-gu, Busan with a lease deposit of KRW 25 million, the lease term of KRW 3 years (hereinafter “the lease of this case”). At the time of the expiration of the above lease term, the Plaintiff renewed the above lease contract and used the house under the same conditions as the previous one.
B. Meanwhile, C died on January 2, 2011, and C’s heir is the Defendant, the wife, E (Plaintiff’s wife), and F.
C. After the death of C, the Plaintiff decided to terminate the instant lease agreement with C’s heir, and transferred the said house to C’s heir around January 22, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. In a case where co-owners of a building that determined the cause of the claim jointly lease a building and receive a security deposit, such lease does not lease their own shares, and it jointly leases the leased object as many parties, and the obligation to return the security deposit shall be considered as an indivisible obligation in its nature (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da43137, Dec. 8, 1998), barring any special circumstance, even if the co-inheritors succeeded to the status of the lessor, the obligation to return the security deposit shall be deemed as an indivisible obligation, barring any special circumstance.
According to the above facts, the defendant, as the wife of C, succeeded to the status of the lessor due to the death of C, as the wife of C, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to refund the full amount of the lease deposit to the plaintiff.
B. The defendant's assertion is asserted to the effect that since the defendant deposited KRW 10,714,285, which corresponds to C's shares in inheritance (3/7) of the obligation to return the lease deposit of this case, the obligation to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff was extinguished.
However, the defendant's security deposit against the plaintiff.