정산금
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 922,56,117 and KRW 881,316,117 among them.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and its modification in this case are as follows, except for the following changes, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
In the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment’s 4th to 17th is amended as follows: 1) Whether the lease deposit is deducted: (a) whether the lease deposit is deducted (the Defendant’s assertion) shall be denied by managing the above real estate in a way that the lease deposit received from the lessee of the newly concluded lease contract is returned to the former lessee upon termination of the existing lease contract; (b) whether the new lease contract is impossible to be concluded by selling it; and (c) the Defendant returned the lease deposit to the last lessee
[Judgment] In full view of the evidence revealed earlier, Gap evidence No. 14-1 through 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the lease deposit related to the real estate of this case is a total of KRW 165 million, and the defendant received KRW 178,00,000 from H which managed the real estate of this case and returned the lease deposit.
Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant returned the lease deposit with personal funds.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
A person shall be appointed.
B. On the five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following is changed: 3) Whether real estate brokerage commission is deducted: Provided, That the defendant's assertion / [the defendant's assertion] sold the real estate of this case, and paid 13 billion won to the non-partyO as brokerage commission.
Therefore, the above brokerage commission should be deducted.
[Judgment] The statement No. 5 of Eul and the testimony of the witnessO alone cannot be viewed as having been paid 13 million won as a brokerage commission when selling the real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Witness
In light of the O's testimony, it is deemed that the above money was used as premium for the tenant's eviction.