임대보증금반환
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 73,750,000 against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related thereto. < Amended by Act No. 12395, Apr. 2, 2014>
The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to have been filed.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 1, 2010, the Plaintiff leased 70,000,000 won as deposit money, and 70,000,000 won from the Defendant for the first 10th east-si, D, and E-ground F Building (hereinafter “instant building”) for two years. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid 70,00,000 won to the Defendant.
B. On August 27, 2012, the Plaintiff re-leased the instant building by setting the deposit amount of KRW 75,000,000, and the period from August 27, 2012 to August 26, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and around that time, paid KRW 5,00,000,00 to the Defendant.
C. On December 11, 2014, the Plaintiff returned the instant building to the Defendant.
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence No. 1, and the ground for appeal
2. Demand for principal lawsuit:
A. According to the fact that the obligation to return the deposit was acknowledged, the instant lease was terminated on August 26, 2014, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the deposit KRW 75,000,000 to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
B. The Defendant’s defense, etc. (1) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should deduct the Plaintiff from the deposit for lease, since the Plaintiff damaged the Plaintiff’s bathing and reasoning of the toilets of the instant building from the amount equivalent to KRW 4,500,000.
The facts that the Plaintiff damaged the toilet bath of the instant building do not conflict between the parties, and it is evident in the records that the Plaintiff claims only the remainder after deducting the amount from the security deposit, since the repair cost is equivalent to KRW 600,000.
On the other hand, it is not sufficient to recognize that the damages exceeding the above 600,000 won, which the Plaintiff was the person due to the Plaintiff’s damage to the bath and to the other day of the instant building solely by the descriptions of Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply). There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, the defendant's defense is the same.