임대차보증금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. On October 1, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,00,000,000 and the lease period of KRW 24 months from October 1, 2012; (b) the Plaintiff delivered the instant office to the Defendant on April 1, 2015; (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,00,000,000 and delay damages therefrom.
2. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit to the Defendant while leasing the instant office.
According to Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the result of the response to the order to submit tax information on the net taxation secretary of the first instance court, among the investigation report against the plaintiff prepared by Han Young-gu Accounting Corporation, the deposit amount for the revised balance sheet and the deposit amount for the 4,500,000 won for the building of this case in the business year settlement statement for the plaintiff in 2011 is stated as the deposit amount for the 50,000,000 won, and the fact that the defendant reported the interest amount for the 50,000,000 won from Jan. 2005 to Jul. 2014 to the head of the competent tax office as the deemed rent for the plaintiff. However, the above fact and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was actually paid the lease deposit to the defendant while renting the office of this case, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise.
Rather, the above evidence, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 3, and evidence No. 3, and the first instance court’s fact-finding reply to the Han Young-gu Accounting Firm on May 25, 2016, as a whole, can be considered as follows. In other words, the lease deposit amount is 50,000.