보증금반환 등
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. Basic facts
A. On September 1, 2009, the Plaintiff leased the second floor of the building located in Yongsan-gu C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Plaintiff during the period from August 1, 2009 to August 30, 201, with a deposit of KRW 15 million, monthly rent of KRW 1250,000,000 per month, and the lease period from August 31, 2009 to August 30, 201.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
While the Plaintiff had been operating a Bosperic Driving Institute in the instant real estate, the Plaintiff requested repair to the Defendant several times after June 2010, and the Defendant did not comply with the request. After that, around June 2014, when the lease relationship was renewed and the lease relationship was continued, the problem of water leakage was not resolved. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the instant lease agreement.
C. Accordingly, on June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff removed from the instant real estate, and the Defendant paid KRW 12.52 million out of the deposit to the Plaintiff.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleading
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated due to the termination of agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the deposit 2.48 million won remaining due to its restitution and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 25, 2014 to the date of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiff.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment 1, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not properly perform his duty to restore when leaving the instant case on June 30, 2014, and thus, comprehensively taking account of the foregoing evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff did not remove the signboard while leaving the instant real estate. However, other facilities installed by the Plaintiff for the operation of the Bodon Private Teaching Institutes have been removed and removed from the construction business operator.