보증금반환
1. The defendant shall pay KRW 5 million to the plaintiff.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3.Paragraph 1.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 4, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the first floor room 2 partitions from C, among the buildings located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, as security deposit of KRW 55 million, and the lease period of KRW 24 months from December 2, 2011, and paid KRW 55 million to C until December 2, 2011.
The term of lease expires on December 2, 2015 due to renewal of the same condition on December 2, 2013.
B. On October 22, 2014, the Defendant succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant lease agreement, accepting the ownership of the instant real estate from C.
C. On September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff married with E on October 8, 2015, and the agreement was reached on around October 2, 2015. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to cancel the instant lease agreement with the husband at that time, and was returned from the Defendant as the refund of the instant lease deposit.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated, the Defendant, a lessor, is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, a lessee.
B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s claim as a family director’s agent is that the Defendant’s husband’s termination of the instant lease agreement against the Defendant while the Plaintiff’s husband was in existence and received KRW 55 million from the Defendant is an act within the scope of the right of normal family director’s powers between husband and wife under Article 827(1) of the Civil Act, and thus, the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 55 million to E is also effective for the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s right of attorney between husband and wife under Article 827(1) of the Civil Act is also effective for the Plaintiff to return the lease deposit to E. The Plaintiff’s right of attorney as a community (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Da1621, Mar. 26, 1985; evidence No. 1, No. 2, and the testimony of witness E. 2.