beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 75,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 20, 2018 to December 20, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4, and 6 to 8:
(1) On April 26, 2014, the Defendant leased the instant real estate E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the three-story houses of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’s ground to the Plaintiff by setting the lease deposit of KRW 60,000,000, and the lease term from May 7, 2014 to May 6, 2016, and the Plaintiff received and used the instant real estate after paying the lease deposit.
(2) On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff decided to change the deposit amount of KRW 75,000,000 for the Defendant and the lease deposit amount of KRW 75,000,00 for the term of May 5, 2018, and additionally paid KRW 15,00,000 for the deposit.
(3) From May 2018, the Plaintiff expressed the Defendant’s wife C’s intent to terminate the lease by text messages several times.
(4) On November 19, 2018, the Plaintiff out of the instant real estate, sent text messages, including C’s intent to request the return of deposit, along with the entrance and password, to C, and C sent a reply letter verifying the request.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the lease of the Plaintiff and the Defendant was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notification of intent to terminate the lease of this case around the beginning of May 2018, and thereafter, as long as the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on November 19, 2018, the Defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.
(B) The Defendant asserted that the termination of the lease was effective on March 20, 2019 after three months from December 20, 2018 when the application for the above payment order was served on the ground that the lease of this case was explicitly renewed, but the Defendant asserted that the termination of the lease becomes effective on March 20, 2019. However, as recognized earlier, the Plaintiff clearly expressed the intention of termination on May 2018, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit). Accordingly, the Defendant’s deposit against the Plaintiff.