A. On April 13, 2012, Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C with the right to lease, even though the lessor becomes one of the co-owners’ mothers of Defendant C, and Defendant C is the agent of Defendant C. However, Defendant C entered into a lease agreement with the right to lease.

From this point of view, the Plaintiff A, the mother of the Plaintiff B, has been residing in a housing unit located in Gyeonggi-do D with a deposit of KRW 20 million and a two-year lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. On July 18, 2014, after the termination of the instant lease agreement, Defendant C returned KRW 18 million out of the lease deposit to Plaintiff B.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 10 evidence (including each number), the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination:

가. 본 소 (1) 원고 A(주위적)원고 B(예비적)의 임대차보증금 반환청구 ㈎ 주위적 청구 이 사건 주택의 임차인이 원고 A임을 전제로 한 원고 A의 주위적 청구는 이유 없다.

㈏ 예비적 청구 1) 예비적 본소에 의하여, 피고 C은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 원고 B에게 남은 임대차보증금을 반환하여야 한다. 2) 이에 대하여 피고 C은, 반환할 보증금에서 임대차계약상 채무인 보일러수리비 648,000원, 화장실 타일 수리비 102,000원, 에어컨 실외기 설치로 인하여 파손된 벽 수리비 50,000원, 대납 전기요금 20,300원, 상수도 모터가동 전기요금 220,000원, 퇴거시 가져간 물건가액 25,000원의 상환 또는 반환 채무가 공제되어야 한다고 주장한다.

According to the evidence Nos. 15-3 and 4, Defendant C paid 20,300 won for the electricity charge imposed by Defendant C to Plaintiff B during the lease period, and the fact that the electricity charge imposed by Plaintiff B during the lease period exceeds 220,000 won is recognized. Thus, Defendant C’s total amount of KRW 240,300 for this part from the security deposit to be refunded by Defendant C.