보증금반환
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 15, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff and the Defendant to lease the leased apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, with KRW 30 million as the lease deposit, KRW 850,00 as the monthly rent, and KRW 850,00 as the lease term until October 14, 2017.
B. The Plaintiff, while operating a child-care center in the instant apartment, was subject to an administrative disposition that the child-care center was closed, and was expected to transfer the lease relationship of the instant apartment to another person during the remainder lease period to the Defendant on February 2017 during the lease period.
C. On March 20, 2017, upon request of the Plaintiff, Nonparty E and the Defendant entered into the instant secondary lease agreement with respect to the instant apartment from April 4, 2017 to April 3, 2019; and on April 4, 2017, the remainder payment date; and Nonparty E transferred the down payment amount of KRW 3 million to the Defendant; and the Defendant transferred the said amount to the Plaintiff.
By April 4, 2017, the remainder payment date, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to restore the instant apartment to its original state, and around E and April 14, 2017, the Defendant confirmed the condition of the instant apartment and received the remainder.
However, in relation to the restoration of the apartment of this case, the plaintiff changed the password of the apartment entrance of this case to the defendant, and the defendant and E could not confirm the inside of the apartment of this case on April 4, 2017.
Accordingly, E notified the Defendant of the rescission of the instant second lease contract, and demanded the return of the down payment to the Defendant, and the Defendant demanded the return of KRW 3 million, which the Plaintiff had transferred to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff directly returned KRW 3 million to E with his own money, who did not return it.
E. On March 23, 2018, at the instant apartment management office, the heating costs of the instant apartment are continuously imposed on the Defendant.