beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
Basic Facts
On September 12, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) stating that “The Plaintiff shall rent KRW 180,000,000,000 for lease deposit, and the down payment of KRW 162,00,000,000 for the remainder of the contract date and the remainder of KRW 162,00,000,000 for each payment on October 31, 2016, with the Defendant as the Defendant’s agent.”
(A) The instant lease agreement includes the content that “The lessor shall actively cooperate with the lessee’s loan of the lease on a deposit basis (Paragraph 3).” The term “ modified matters” in the building ledger of the instant housing in the building ledger of the instant housing is registered on April 4, 2016 as “Violation of the Building Act (Unlawful extension)” [Mon board / Residence / 34.6 square meters], and “large-scale repair [Mon / Residence / 84.29 square meters]” (Evidence 1). The Plaintiff is registered as “the down payment 18,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant down payment”) to the Defendant on the date of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement.
A) Around that time, the Plaintiff’s bank filed an application for a loan of the loan of the lease of this case with the Plaintiff’s bank. However, the said bank responded from the said bank that “the instant house was registered as an illegal building, and thus, it is impossible to grant the loan of the lease of this case.” 【The Plaintiff’s agent asserting the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, and 2, the entire pleadings, the purport of the pleading, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan of the lease of the lease of this case was made.”
Since then, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the down payment of the instant case from the date of receiving the notice from the bank that the deposit was impossible to lend the deposit for the instant house, and the Defendant also demanded the said down payment to the Plaintiff.