임대보증금반환
1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs of appeal shall be individually considered.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 28, 2014, the Defendant sub-leased part of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the second floor (hereinafter “the subject matter of the previous vehicle”) to the Plaintiff by setting the deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000, and the contract term from December 1, 2014 to November 30, 2015 (hereinafter “the sub-lease contract of this case”), and the Plaintiff established a private teaching institute curriculum from the subject matter of the previous vehicle of this case by paying a deposit around that time.
B. On May 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intention to terminate the instant sub-lease contract, and at that time delivered and removed the subject matter of the instant sub-lease to the Defendant, and paid the monthly rent only up to May 2015.
C. On June 24, 2015, the Defendant returned the sublease bond to the Plaintiff, and the same year:
7. 16.20,000 won was paid respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant demanded the plaintiff to terminate the instant sub-lease contract on May 2015, and the plaintiff consented thereto and delivered the subject matter of the instant sub-lease to the defendant. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should return 2.8 million won unpaid out of the sub-lease deposit to the plaintiff.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff unilaterally removed from the subject matter of this case before the expiration of the sub-lease contract, and that the defendant did not request the termination of the sub-lease contract or consent to the termination thereof.
B. The written evidence Nos. 4, 5, 10, and 11 is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant sub-lease contract prior to the expiration of the period of the instant sub-lease contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
However, the sub-lease contract of this case has expired on November 30, 2015, and the defendant has not yet returned to the plaintiff, so it is 2.8 million won.