임대차보증금반환청구
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. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except where the Defendant added or added the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant asserts that the divided debt claim does not have the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff the lease deposit within the extent exceeding the Defendant’s share of the instant building.
However, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant is a lessor of the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the lease deposit to the Defendant, a lessor, does not seek the return of the lease deposit to the Defendant, one of co-owners, and the Defendant’s assertion asserted on a different premise is without merit without further review
[Additionally, even if the plaintiff claims the return of the lease deposit to the defendant who is one of the co-owners, the defendant (96/238 shares) is appointed as the administrator of the building of this case as a majority of co-owners' shares with the consent of I (34/238 shares) and J (34/238 shares), the defendant, I, and J shall inform the plaintiff that the defendant was appointed as the administrator of the building of this case, and after the conclusion of the lease contract of this case, it is recognized that the plaintiff, I, and J jointly leased the building of this case to the plaintiff, and the obligation to return the deposit constitutes an indivisible obligation in its nature (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da43137, Dec. 8, 1998).
The defendant's defenses, which the plaintiff concluded with E on November 4, 1992, February 2, 1994, and June 13, 1994.