임대차보증금반환
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
(b).
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part of the trial of the court of first instance, which has been used after being dried, shall have been dried up to 13 pages 3, 8, 13 as follows.
The Defendants asserted that “A” did not notify the Defendants of the water leakage of the attached Form No. 1 to the extent that the Defendants did not notify the Defendants of the water leakage of the attached Form No. 1, thereby causing damage to the above water leakage cost of boiler facilities 6,733,110 won due to the Defendants’ repair delay. The Plaintiff also recognized this and agreed with the Defendant to deduct the above water leakage construction cost from the lease deposit of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the above water leakage cost should be deducted from the lease deposit of this case. Therefore, even if measures to prevent additional water leakage were taken to prevent water leakage, the Defendants cannot prevent the progress of the housing damage caused by water leakage already generated, even if it was possible to prevent further water leakage. Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not have any obvious evidence to distinguish the damage incurred before and after the Plaintiff’s repair delay, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had the duty to repair water leakage itself, as a matter of principle, did not have any reason to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had any additional construction cost notified.”
3. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the defendants are justified.