beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.10.19 2016가단28446

임대차보증금반환등

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,89,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 24, 2017 to October 19, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 14, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement and entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,00 and the lease term of KRW 2 years for the first floor of the D building on the other 1st floor in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and KRW 101 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On August 14, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant renewed the lease agreement each year after the expiration of the lease term under the above lease term, the lease agreement was renewed with the content that KRW 30,000,000 per month for the lease deposit under the above lease term, KRW 1,100,000 per month for the tea, and the lease term from August 14, 2015 to August 13, 2016.

C. The water meter of the instant building was removed during the period of the above-term of the disbursement of the cost of replacing the water meter, and the Plaintiff spent KRW 150,000 with the replacement cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Gap's evidence 2, Gap's evidence 4, Gap's evidence 5, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the fact that the obligation to return the lease deposit is recognized, the instant lease contract is terminated upon the expiration of the term. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the deposit to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000, barring any special circumstance.

B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s disbursement of the replacement cost of the water meter constitutes an amount disbursed to preserve the instant building, and thus, it is reasonable that the Plaintiff, a lessor, should bear the replacement cost of KRW 150,00 as necessary. 2) Therefore, the Defendant, barring special circumstances, is obliged to reimburse the Plaintiff of KRW 150,000 as necessary cost.

3. Determination on the defense, etc.

A. The summary of the defense 1 defenses against overdue rent or unjust enrichment corresponding to the rent did not pay the difference by one-month from July 14, 2016 to August 13, 2016.