임대차보증금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. The judgment of the court of first instance, which accepted only a part of the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff and assessed the lease deposit to be returned to the Plaintiff by the Defendant (=100,00,000 won for the lease deposit - the unpaid electricity charge of KRW 73,430,00 for the lease deposit - the unpaid electricity charge of KRW 423,770 for the lease deposit - the unpaid electricity charge of KRW 2,192,794 - the unpaid electricity charge of KRW 5,00,00 for the lease deposit which was refunded). The Defendant appeals only to the unpaid water charge, unpaid electricity charge, and repair cost due to the damage to a building in the part of the claim rejected by the court of first instance. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the above part.
2. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because the court’s reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.
3. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 18,953,436 [The amount of KRW 100,000,000 for lease deposit - the aggregate amount of KRW 81,046,564 for the first instance trial (i.e., unpaid amount of KRW 73,430,770 for delayed payment damages of KRW 423,770 for unpaid electricity charges of KRW 423,70 for late payment damages of KRW 42,192,794 for the lease deposit)] and delay damages for the said amount, barring special circumstances.
4. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of additional deduction
A. The Defendant’s assertion that there is no lease deposit to be refunded to the Plaintiff when the Defendant additionally deducteds the unpaid water rate, unpaid electricity rate, and restitution costs from the Plaintiff.
1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the unpaid water rate is to pay the entire water rate of the instant building, and from October to February 2015, 2015, the Plaintiff failed to pay the water rate on behalf of another lessee, and the Defendant paid the water rate on behalf of the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff ought to pay KRW 1,665,830 on behalf of the Defendant.
B. In addition, the Plaintiff did not fully pay the water rate from March 2015 to July 2016, and accordingly, the Defendant paid the water rate from March 2015 to July 2016.