beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended at the trial room, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. As to the judgment of the first instance court which dismissed all of the above claims in this case where the plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 15,00,000 and KRW 4,821,918 due to delay in return of deposit for lease deposit, the scope of the trial of the first instance court is clear that only the plaintiff has filed an appeal against the claim corresponding to the claim for damages for interior construction costs, and the plaintiff has filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for interior construction costs newly made in the first instance court. As such, in the judgment of the first instance, only the claim for damages equivalent to the expenses for interior construction and the part equivalent to the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount for which the plaintiff has additionally claimed at the first instance court, and only the part of the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount for the expenses for interior construction and the amount for which the plaintiff has additionally claimed at the first instance
2. Basic facts
A. On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff leased a lease deposit of KRW 50,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000 (payment on December 20, 201), and the period from December 20, 2013 to December 19, 2014, part of 132 square meters (hereinafter “instant office”) among the three-story land buildings located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, which are owned by the Defendant, from the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant office”). At that time, the Plaintiff agreed not to pay the Plaintiff rent to the Defendant until the Plaintiff completes the interior construction, including the heating and cooling facilities of the instant office and the installation of a brick, etc.
B. From the end of December 2013, the Plaintiff commenced the foregoing interior work, and disbursed a total of KRW 15,000,000 for the construction cost.
C. The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay the rent for January 2014 prior to the completion of the instant interior work, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 3,000,000 to the account in the name of D designated by the Defendant on February 4, 2014.
On the other hand, around April 2014, the Defendant became unable to use the instant office for the Plaintiff on the ground of the change of the owner of the above ground building.