beta
Text
1. A quasi-Loan Agreement No. 73, No. 2015, signed by the Defendant’s notary public C against the Plaintiff on February 6, 2015.
Reasons
1. The facts under the recognition of facts may be found, either in dispute between the parties or in each entry of Gap evidence 2 to 10, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), together with the whole purport of the pleadings.
The plaintiff is a person who works as a brokerage assistant for E-real estate located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
B. On June 11, 2012, upon the Plaintiff’s introduction, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with Nonparty F to lease real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from F with the lease deposit amount of KRW 240,00,000,00, and from August 6, 2012 to August 5, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
By August 6, 2012, the Defendant paid the said deposit to F, and received the instant apartment, and made a move-in report on August 7, 2012.
However, the Defendant did not obtain the fixed date under the instant lease agreement at the time, and obtained the fixed date on July 9, 2014.
C. As to the site of the apartment of this case, the right to collateral security had already been established with respect to the site of the apartment of this case, which is KRW 45,120,00,000 for the non-party bank and the maximum debt amount. However, on August 6, 2012, the F extended an additional loan of KRW 172,40,000 from our bank and set the right to collateral security at KRW 206,880,000 for the site of the apartment of this case.
The Defendant demanded F to return the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement at the end of the expiration of the lease term of this case, but F did not demand F to return the lease deposit to the Defendant.
Accordingly, on August 8, 2014, the Defendant created the right to collateral security with a maximum debt amount of KRW 240,000,000 for the instant apartment under the instant lease agreement.
E. The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to prepare a notarial deed concerning the damages for which the Defendant did not receive the said deposit from F.