임대차보증금
1. Revocation of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, and the lawsuit shall be dismissed in this part; and
2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.
1. The plaintiff at the court of first instance claimed 4 million won in the amount of unpaid deposit and damages for delay calculated by 20% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment. The court of first instance dismissed part of the claim for damages for delay and accepted the remainder of the claim.
Since only the defendant filed an appeal, the scope of the trial of this court shall be limited to the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance.
2. On February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) leased from the Defendant for the period of February 23, 2012, the deposit of KRW 180,000,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 1301,00,000,000,000,000.
The Defendant returned only the remaining security deposit after deducting 4 million won as repair cost by asserting that the leakage, such as toilets, etc. that occurred after January 2013 and around October 2013, was due to the cause attributable to the Plaintiff. This is not due to the cause attributable to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay 4 million won of the unclaimed deposit and damages for delay.
3. The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful, since the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to withdraw the lawsuit, as such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.
If an agreement has been reached between the parties to withdraw the lawsuit, such lawsuit shall be dismissed as there is no legal interest in maintaining the lawsuit, barring any special circumstances.
(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to withdraw the instant lawsuit on August 20, 2014, when the first instance trial is pending, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence Nos. 81, 1312, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da1312, Mar. 9, 1982). Accordingly, barring any special circumstance, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting rights.
The plaintiff argues to the effect that the defendant did not comply with the agreement on the withdrawal of the lawsuit on the condition that the defendant fully pays the amount of money.