beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.12.05 2019가합429

임대차보증금

Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E, respectively, KRW 111,316,895, and Defendant B, respectively. < Amended by Act No. 1666,975,340, Mar. 1, 2008>

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is the spouse of the network F (Death October 2017), Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E are the children of the network F.

B. On July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the deceased F and the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H apartment I (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with a deposit of KRW 500,00,000, and with a period from August 31, 2016 to August 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid a deposit of KRW 500,000,000 on August 31, 2016.

C. On March 10, 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to extend the term of the instant lease agreement with Defendant B who represented the Defendants until the end of March 2019, but additionally pay the difference of KRW 300,000 per month after August 31, 2018.

From January 20, 2019 to March 2019, the Plaintiff had a director in the instant apartment complex several times from around the end of March 2019 to around the end of March, 2019. As such, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B an intent to receive the deposit paid under the instant lease agreement until that time. On January 25, 2019, the Plaintiff sent the content-certified mail demanding the return of the deposit upon the termination of the instant lease agreement to Defendant B, and the said mail was delivered to Defendant B around that time.

E. The Plaintiff removed from the instant apartment on March 26, 2019, but did not inform the Defendants of the password of the instant apartment site.

F. Upon entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid 238,070 won for the long-term repair appropriations to the former lessee on behalf of the former lessee. The Plaintiff paid 588,960 won for the long-term repair appropriations to be borne by the lessor during the instant lease agreement, and paid 9,000 won for the repair of the instant apartment boiler.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Evidence No. 9-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the obligation to return the lease deposit was established, the instant case is recognized.