beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) simultaneously with the delivery of real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant store”) KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 1500,000 (excluding value-added tax, prepaid), from November 5, 2012 to November 4, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant for lease deposit. The instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed on November 5, 2015.
B. On April 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement on August 4, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings
2. As to the main claim
A. According to the fact that the lease contract of this case was terminated on August 4, 2016, according to the above recognition on the claim for the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, the Defendant, a lessor, is obligated to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff, a lessee.
[Plaintiffs filed a claim for late payment for the amount of KRW 50 million from August 2, 2016, but the lessor’s obligation to return the leased deposit and the lessee’s obligation to deliver the leased object are in a simultaneous performance relationship. An obligor with the right of defense for simultaneous performance is in a simultaneous performance relationship, and even if the obligor fails to perform the obligation within the due date, the other party does not first perform his/her obligation or provide performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da31250, Dec. 23, 1997). Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for late payment for this portion of the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit, since the Plaintiff occupied the store of this case and did not deliver it to the Defendant.
4,740만 원의 손해배상금청구 부분 ⑴ 손해배상책임의 발생 ㈎ 책임의 근거 1) 인정사실 가) 피고는 2016. 5. 25. 소외 D에게 권리금이 없는 것을 전제로 이 사건 점포를 임차보증금 5,000만 원, 월 차임 170만 원,...