beta
Text
1. The defendant shall receive KRW 50,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 7, 2008, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with C during each year from July 2, 2014 to July 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Around May 22, 2014, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.9 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.9 million, and the lease period of the lease from July 7, 2014 to July 6, 2015.
B. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the ownership of the instant building from C, and agreed to succeed to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement.
C. On May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her intent to refuse the renewal of the instant lease agreement.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case expired on July 6, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff and deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff at the same time.
B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that, by demanding the Plaintiff to renew the contract pursuant to Article 10 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the lease contract was concluded again under the same conditions as the former lease contract was extended by July 6, 2016.
However, the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act does not apply since the deposit exceeds 400 million won (see Article 2 of the same Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act) in the event that a monthly rent is converted into a deposit and added up with an agreed deposit (the Seoul Special Metropolitan City standard). Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted without need to further examine other issues.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.