손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's incidental appeal against the defendants and the defendants' appeal are all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. On the 5th page 5th page 19, and 20th page “(the Defendant asserted that at the time of the instant lease agreement, the market price of the instant multi-family house and its site was approximately KRW 1,450,000,000,” the following is added: (a) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the aforementioned assertion; (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it; (c) even if the Defendants’ assertion was recognized, the total maximum debt amount and the lease deposit of senior lessee reaches KRW 1,316,00,00,00, and thus, the Plaintiff does not interfere with recognizing that there was a very high risk that the Plaintiff could not recover the full deposit).”
Part 6, paragraph 20, the following shall be added:
In addition, on April 8, 2013, the expiration date of the lease term of this case, Defendant B started compulsory sale of the instant multi-family house and its site after the lease contract of this case was implicitly renewed. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B did not bear liability for damages on the ground that he could not recover the lease deposit by implied renewal of the lease contract without making efforts to refund the deposit, such as requesting the lessor to return the lease deposit, receiving the lease deposit, etc. before and after the expiration of the lease term.
However, the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the lease contract of this case was implicitly renewed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The lease contract of this case is governed by the Housing Lease Protection Act as a lease of a residential building, and Article 4(2) of that Act.