임대차보증금반환
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit.
1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of this Court is as follows: ① “A is dismissed”; ② “A is dismissed as of November 7, 201” in Part 4 of the judgment of the first instance; ③ subsequent to the “Lease Agreement” in Part 10 of Part 4 of the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter referred to as “instant two lease agreement”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant”) is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the content “(a)” in Part 6 of Part 4 of the judgment of the first instance.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The lease term of 201, which the Plaintiff’s assertion A leased from the Defendant, expired on November 6, 2014, and A transferred 201 before the expiration of the lease term, and the Defendant succeeded to D’s obligation to return the lease deposit of this case. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, etc., who is the litigation taking over the lawsuit of A, the lease deposit amount of 25 million won and delay damages from November 7, 2014, which is the day following the expiration of the lease term.
In addition, the Defendant agreed to accept the obligation to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million with respect to the instant house (hereinafter “the obligation to return the deposit of this case”) and granted the right to representation regarding the conclusion of the agreement to D and N. Even if the right to representation was not granted, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 50 million with the exception of the lease deposit of KRW 80 million, as well as the delay damages therefrom, since the right to representation was not granted to D and N pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act.
B. Although the defendant alleged that the defendant granted the right to enter into a lease agreement to D, who is the actual owner of the two houses of this case, the right to enter into a lease agreement of this case has not been granted.
However, N and D arbitrarily prepare a receipt for the two houses of this case, and impose responsibility on the defendant.