전부금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts and
2. The reasoning for this part of the court’s argument is as follows: “The plaintiff at the last 2th of the judgment of the court of first instance” did not refund “the amount of KRW 65.6 million out of the lease deposit (=the amount of KRW 100 million already returned - the unpaid amount of KRW 20 million – the unpaid amount of KRW 14.4 million)” to C; thus, except for adding “the plaintiff within the scope of the obligation to return the lease deposit,” it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Determination
A. According to the above facts, C’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit against the Defendant was transferred to the Plaintiff according to the instant assignment order, and the amount is KRW 20 million, which was already returned by the Defendant from KRW 100 million to KRW 14,400,000,000, which was the remainder of KRW 65,660,000,000, excluding the unpaid rent that the Plaintiff deducted from KRW 14,440,00,00,000,000,000,000 won, which was paid by the Defendant as security, was not
(2) Therefore, as to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 65.6 million and KRW 4,478,00 cited in the first instance judgment, the Defendant’s delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until June 21, 2018, which is the date of the first instance judgment, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence of the obligation and the scope of the obligation, from September 7, 2017, following the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint, and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment; with respect to KRW 2,082,00,000,000,000,000, which is the date of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint to the Plaintiff; from September 7, 2017, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation.