beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff, setting the deposit amount of KRW 250,000 (25,000,000,000,000 at the time of the contract, and the balance of KRW 222,5,000,000,000,000,000) from October 19, 2014 to October 20, 2016, with the term of lease fixed (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant issued a receipt to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff received KRW 25 million as the down payment out of the deposit for the deposit for the lease on the instant real estate (hereinafter “the instant receipt”).
C. On January 6, 2015, the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 185 million from one bank and remitted the loan to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant established the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On January 6, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 185 million from one bank, and paid KRW 185 million to the Defendant as the lease deposit for the instant lease agreement.
The Plaintiff first concluded the instant lease agreement, 1001 and 1101, a rooftop bank, were also used, and the actual occupancy time was determined at the time of entering the remainder (the rent).
Since then, the Defendant stated that “101 was transferred to another person if he had been transferred to another person”, and that the Plaintiff continued to reside in the 1101 roof room without any choice but at the request of the relative or the family.
In addition, the defendant again moved to the plaintiff at 404 again because he wanted to enter into a penthouse, and he moved to the plaintiff at 4th son.
However, on September 8, 2016, the defendant returned to the Supreme Court.