beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be modified as follows:
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part resulting from a dismissal under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. A part used in a trial;
A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the Defendant paid 20,000,000 won to the Plaintiff as the contract deposit or the intermediate payment at the time of concluding the instant lease contract, and the fact that the instant lease contract was revoked is not disputed between the parties, and that the instant lease contract was revoked as seen earlier.
According to the above facts, the plaintiff is obligated to return to the defendant the above KRW 20,000,000 received as the lease deposit, unless there are special circumstances.
B) On this issue, the Plaintiff asserts that, as a down payment, KRW 20,00,00 paid from the Defendant, the Plaintiff was confiscated by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s violation of the Defendant’s obligation to pay rent, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to return it to the Defendant. On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff does not have any obligation to return the down payment to the Defendant. On the other hand, in the conclusion of a down payment contract, inasmuch as the down payment was received in the nature of the down payment, the down payment has the nature of the down payment, and as long as the contract was rescinded due to the cause attributable to either of the parties, even if the contract was rescinded due to the cause attributable to the contract, the other party can only receive compensation for the damages incurred due to the nonperformance, and the down payment does not naturally belong to the other party as a penalty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da24930, Apr. 29, 2010).