채무부존재확인
1. The Plaintiff’s lease deposit against the Defendant based on the lease agreement dated May 29, 2008 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
1. On May 29, 2008 with respect to the Seo-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City 114 Dong 406 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), a contract under which the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment with a deposit of KRW 34 million to the Defendant, and a contract under which the Plaintiff set a deposit of KRW 25 million with the Defendant’s senior mother D to lease the instant apartment with a deposit of KRW 25 million, respectively.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The lease agreement between the Plaintiff and D is genuine, and the Plaintiff received KRW 250 million as the lease deposit, KRW 17 million on June 25, 2008, and KRW 55 million on June 26, 2008.
Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million to D, and there is no lease deposit to the defendant.
B. The lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the real contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 2.5 million and KRW 9 million to E at the Plaintiff’s request in cash, and paid KRW 3.4 million in total as the down payment. ② The Defendant repaired the apartment before the director because the apartment was too worn out, the Defendant replaced the repair cost of KRW 3.1 million with the deposit money, and paid KRW 5 million in total as the intermediate payment by the Plaintiff’s certificate of the public supply, and ③ as recognized by the Plaintiff, paid KRW 2.5 million in total as the lease deposit.
Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 34 million to the Defendant.
3. Determination
A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation to return the lease deposit, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims that the plaintiff denied the facts of the cause of the obligation by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts of the requirement of legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998), and the lessee, in order to claim the return of the lease deposit, the fact that the