보증금반환
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
3. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.
1. Whether the defendant's appeal is lawful
A. The defendant's gist of the grounds for appeal appealed only against the judgment on the burden of litigation costs among the judgment of the court of first instance.
B. Article 391 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “No independent appeal shall be filed against a judgment on costs of lawsuit and provisional execution,” and an appeal against a judgment on costs of lawsuit shall be permitted only when the whole or part of an appeal against a judgment on the merits is justified. Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal is unlawful.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's appeal
A. 1) On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff owned by the Defendant, Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment and 102 Dong 902 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
(1) The term of the lease contract under the terms and conditions that the lease deposit shall be KRW 100,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,000,000, and the term of the lease shall be from April 30, 2014 to April 29, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).
(2) Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit to the Defendant and received the instant apartment from the Defendant. At the time, the Plaintiff paid 260,040 won for the long-term repair appropriations for the instant apartment on behalf of the Defendant.
3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff transferred the instant apartment to the Defendant on or around the end of April 2016, and received a refund from the Defendant around May 25, 2016, of KRW 100,260,040 among the total amount of lease deposit and long-term repair appropriations, KRW 88,319,660 among the total amount of lease deposit and long-term repair appropriations. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, and 5 (including the serial number, the description of Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. 1 Determination as to the cause of the claim 1) The fact that the lease term under the instant lease agreement expires on April 29, 2016 is as seen earlier, and the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the entries including the virtual number) is comprehensively taken into account, the lease term between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on February 2, 2016, which was before the termination of the instant lease agreement, shall be extended by two months, and this is related thereto.