beta
Text
1. The defendant's delivery from the plaintiff of Ansan-si C Apartment 106, 1102, and at the same time, 150,000 won to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, and comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on June 5, 2014 with respect to Ansan C apartment 106 Dong 1102 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), with the term of lease from June 4, 2014 to June 4, 2016, with the term of lease of KRW 150,000,000, and paid the above lease deposit to the Defendant. The said lease agreement was renewed once, and the term of lease was extended until June 4, 2018, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant real estate will be a director or a director on June 14, 2018.
Therefore, the instant lease agreement was terminated on September 14, 2018 after three months from June 14, 2018 at the latest by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination of the lease agreement.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to refund 150,000,000 won to the plaintiff.
Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that the instant real estate was not delivered from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant by the closing date of pleadings in full view of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant may seek delivery of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant’s obligation to return the above lease deposit amount of KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s obligation to deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant are in the simultaneous performance relationship, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 150,00,000 to the Plaintiff at the same time with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Defendant.
As long as the Plaintiff did not deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the obligation to return the above lease deposit to the Plaintiff was delayed performance. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay of KRW 150,000 is without merit.
2. Conclusion Plaintiff’s claim