청구이의
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.
3...
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the overdue charge of KRW 7 million and the damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.
B. (1) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant paid 7 million won in arrears, which is the deposit of the first lease agreement, to the Plaintiff by deducting the deposit of the instant lease agreement from the deposit of the first lease agreement, and that the Defendant paid 25 million won in arrears to the Plaintiff.
As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the deposit received at the time of the instant lease agreement was received KRW 18 million by adding the deposit amount of KRW 7 million under the first lease agreement to KRW 25 million.
(2) On July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff as of July 10, 2012: (a) KRW 25 million (in the event of a contract, KRW 15 million; (b) the remainder of KRW 10 million on July 18, 2012); (c) the rent of KRW 1 million on the 20th day of each month; and (d) the lease term from July 19, 2012 to July 17, 2014; and (b) according to the Defendant’s financial transaction details, copies, etc. attached to the petition of appeal, the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2012 (contract deposit amount); and (c) the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 100 million on July 19, 201, KRW 10 million (one million on July 19, 2012).
According to these facts, the defendant paid all the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million under the lease contract of this case after deducting KRW 7 million in arrears from the deposit amount of the first lease contract of this case at the time of the lease contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant paid the plaintiff the lease contract of this case with KRW 18 million, excluding KRW 7 million in arrears, as the deposit amount of the lease contract of this case is different.
Therefore, it is true.