beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,190,409 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 18, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff leased and used the instant apartment from the Defendant for lease by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 110,000,000,000 and the lease period from April 28, 2015 to April 27, 2017, and upon the expiration of the lease period, delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant on September 16, 2017.
B. On September 28, 2017, the Defendant deposited KRW 110,000,000 for the lease deposit with the Plaintiff as the deposit recipient. On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to make up for the principal of the lease deposit and received the said deposit.
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7, and the ground for appeal
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the Defendant paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 110,000,000 and the damages for delay calculated from September 17, 2017, the following day after the delivery of the instant apartment, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit of KRW 110,000,000 among them, it is merely a part of the deposit, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated from September 17, 2017 to October 16, 2017, which is the day before the receipt of the deposit.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the full amount of the lease deposit is no longer liable.
B. In order to be effective a deposit for repayment, there must be a provision and deposit for the full repayment of the obligation, and the deposit for part of the obligation does not take effect as to that part. However, if the creditor expresses his/her intent of reservation that the deposit be appropriated for part of the obligation, and receives it, the deposit shall be appropriated for the partial repayment of the obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da33297, Feb. 14, 2013). According to the foregoing facts, according to the foregoing facts, the Defendant calculated from September 17, 2017, which is the date following the expiration of the lease term, for the Plaintiff to whom the apartment house of this case was delivered.