beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.06.24 2019나63669

전세보증금반환

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

On January 1, 2009, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 50,000,000,000 from January 15, 2009 to January 14, 201 (hereinafter “the lease of this case”), and thereafter, paid the deposit money to the Defendant at around that time, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000 won.

The instant lease contract has been renewed again, and the contract terminated upon delivery to the Defendant on October 20, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unless there are special circumstances to determine the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million and delay damages.

The defendant's defense of the judgment on the deduction of overdue rent, etc. should be deducted from the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, which is not paid from the main point of the defendant's argument, and the amount of KRW 48 million, which the plaintiff and the defendant agreed verbally (=60,000 won per month x 105 months).

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1 (which the plaintiff prepared to the defendant), witness E, and testimony and arguments of the first instance court from October 15, 2009 to October 14, 2017 when the lease contract of this case was terminated, 48 million won (=500,000 won x 96 months) in total, 9.4 million won (=2 million won per month x 47 months from October 15, 2009 to September 14, 2013). Thus, the defendant is liable to return the remainder of the lease deposit to the defendant after deducting it from the plaintiff (i.e., 1,45 million won).

This part of the defendant's assertion is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

There is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of the above oral agreement with regard to the deduction of electricity charges.