임대차보증금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance with respect to this case are as follows, except for the dismissal of “Article 2-a.b.” among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows:
Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.
[Attachment]
A. On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 775,600 to the Defendant under the name of environmental improvement charges, at the request of the Defendant. The environmental improvement charges should be borne by the lessor, who is the lessor.
Therefore, the defendant should return the money paid to the plaintiff as the above environmental improvement charges.
B) The Plaintiff deposited the Defendant’s monthly rent of KRW 5,00,000, KRW 3,000 on May 19, 2009, KRW 3,000,00 on June 11, 2009, KRW 2,450,000 on June 15, 2009, KRW 3,000,000 on August 21, 2009, KRW 3,000 on September 3, 2009, KRW 4,450,00 on October 26, 209, KRW 20,90,000 on account of the Plaintiff’s direct payment. Accordingly, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the above environmental improvement charges to the Plaintiff under the name of 75,00,000, KRW 75,00 on the ground of environmental improvement charges, the Defendant cannot be considered to have paid the Plaintiff the above environmental improvement charges to the Plaintiff under the Environment Improvement Charges Act.
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that there is no money in the name of environmental improvement charges to be refunded to the Plaintiff when offsetting a final and conclusive payment claim based on the final and conclusive judgment.