beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 64,650,00 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from October 5, 2016 to May 26, 2017, and from May 27, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 4, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant and the Jeonjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant housing”), setting the lease deposit of KRW 65,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 50,000 (prepaid payment on October 5, 201), from October 5, 2012 to October 4, 2901.
Since then, the lease contract was extended until October 4, 2016.
B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant on September 4, 2012, and KRW 30,000,000 on October 5, 2012, and KRW 32,00,000 on October 26, 2012.
C. On August 2016, before the expiration of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the absence of intent to renew the contract, and delivered the instant house to the Defendant on October 4, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 65,000,000 and delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the timing of delivery of the instant house, the Defendant did not fully deliver the instant house by left the Plaintiff, etc., and notified the Defendant of the password number around December 10, 2016, and thus, the Defendant did not deliver the instant house on October 4, 2016. In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings in video as indicated in the evidence No. 21 through No. 25 of the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff’s director at the instant house on October 4, 2016, even though the Plaintiff was deemed to have moved out while leaving the instant house with garbage or part of the goods, considering the type and quantity of the goods loaded, it is not deemed that the Plaintiff is not an obstacle to the recognition of delivery of the instant house (However, the Plaintiff’s duty to remove or bear the necessary expenses to remove the goods left the instant house or bear the necessary expenses, as follows:
In addition, the Plaintiff is a director in the instant housing.