beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,540,270 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 16, 2016 to May 4, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 12, 2013, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant the fixed lease deposit amount of KRW 105,00,000, and from March 21, 2013 to March 20, 2015, the lease deposit amount of KRW 105,00,00, and the lease term of KRW 100,00,00 (hereinafter “instant building”).
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
The Plaintiff paid the interim management expenses and the long-term repair appropriations on March 20, 2015, and completed the transfer process, but the Defendant did not notify the Defendant of the full-time identification number of the instant building on the ground that the said lease deposit is not returned.
C. Around March 20, 2015, the Defendant prepared KRW 120,00,000 in total for the return of the above lease deposit, but the Plaintiff refused to return the said lease deposit on the ground that the Plaintiff did not inform the Defendant of the present title number of the instant building. On March 15, 2016, the Defendant paid only KRW 102,459,730 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the removal and replacement of the present title number of the instant building and the cost of restitution should be deducted.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5-1, 2, 20, and 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the instant lease agreement expired on March 20, 2015 and the Defendant received delivery of the instant building on March 15, 2016. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 2,540,270 (=105,000,000 - 102,459,730) out of the deposit for lease deposit and delay damages therefor.
B. Furthermore, on or around March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,347,983 as total damages for delay from March 21, 2015 to March 15, 2016 on the premise that the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the duty to deliver the instant building.