임대차보증금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following matters, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. Additional determination;
A. Although the Plaintiff agreed to deliver the instant real estate by February 28, 2017, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should deduct unjust enrichment of KRW 11,458,064, which is the amount equivalent to the rent from March 1, 2017 to March 16, 2017, from the lease deposit, from the lease deposit. In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) benefits accrued from the return of unjust enrichment on the ground that he/she gains without any legal grounds; (b) even though the lessee continued to possess the leased building after the lease agreement was terminated, if the lessee did not actually gain profit from the failure to use or make profit from the leased building; and (c) even if the lessee did not use or make profit from the leased building due to the lessee’s circumstances, it does not constitute unjust enrichment of the lessee; and (d) even if the lessee did not use or make profit from the leased building, the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the leased building was not used or made profit from the leased building, the foregoing case.
The Defendant, from January 1, 2017 to March 16, 2017, appointed a manager of the instant real estate and used water and electricity. As such, KRW 2,016,080 and KRW 4,039,692 from the lease deposit.