건물명도(인도)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) corresponding to the following additional payment order:
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the case’s determination of “the claim for refund of deposit” in relation to the Defendant’s counterclaim, from 9th to 11th to 12th of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it cited the same as the attached Form and summary pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the defendant's claim for refund of deposit
A. The lease contract for each of the instant real estate in question, upon occurrence of the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit for each of the instant real estate, was terminated due to the Defendant’s delay around January 2017, and the Defendant delivered each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff as seen earlier. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million for the instant real estate (a) and KRW 14 million for the instant real estate (b) to the Defendant, barring special circumstances.
B. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of deduction: ① the rent of KRW 1,960,00 for the month unpaid from June 29, 2016 to January 28, 2017; ② the Defendant returned the key from January 29, 2017 to May 20, 2017; ② the amount of damages equivalent to the monthly rent of KRW 1,042,520; ③ the electricity charges of KRW 281,410; ④ the amount of electricity re-supply charges of KRW 18,70; ⑤ the amount of KRW 200,00, KRW 60, KRW 700; and ④ the unpaid amount of KRW 20,000, KRW 20,000, KRW 20,000, KRW 20,000, KRW 37,000, KRW 47,000 for the electricity re-supply charges of this case from January 29, 2016>