beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 24, 2018 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 5, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the instant housing indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant housing”) from C by setting the lease deposit of KRW 225 million, the lease deposit of KRW 625 million from July 6, 2015 to July 6, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease”). The Plaintiff paid the said lease deposit to C at around that time, and completed the resident registration on July 6, 2015, and resided after moving into the instant housing.
B. On November 10, 2016, the Defendant purchased the instant house from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 19, 2016.
C. On May 22, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the content-certified mail that he would not want the renewal of the instant lease contract and return the lease deposit upon the expiration of the term. On July 20, 2017, the lease registration for the instant housing was completed on the basis of the lease registration order (Seoul Central District Court 2017Kadan160) dated 12, 2017, on which the Plaintiff was the lessee, and around that time, the Plaintiff was the director of the instant housing.
[Grounds for Recognition] deemed confession (Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the lease of this case was terminated at the expiration of the term and the plaintiff has already delivered the house of this case. The defendant, the transferee of the house of this case, is obligated to pay the lease deposit of this case and its delay damages to the plaintiff with opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act as the lessee of this case.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 24, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when a duplicate of the application for the instant payment order was served on the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.