beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff, who was the lessee of an apartment owned by the Defendant, was not paid KRW 1,480,300,000, out of the deposit amount of KRW 430,000,000 does not conflict between the parties
With respect to the claim in this case that the plaintiff sought the return of the part of the deposit, the defendant claimed that the amount equivalent to the above amount was paid with the expenses for apartment repair and restoration, and that the amount corresponding to that portion was deducted from the deposit in accordance with the agreement that the amount would be deducted from the deposit, so the deposit that the defendant
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the statements in the Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7, the Plaintiff is the first occupant leased from the Defendant before the registration of the leased object has been completed after the construction of the leased object, and not only agreed to restore the leased object between the Defendant and the Defendant, but also agreed to deduct expenses incurred in repairing and restoring the leased object from the deposit to the Defendant on April 29, 2019, which is the day before the expiration of the term of the contract, after verifying the shortage of the apartment inside the apartment, such as the living room and inside room, etc., or the force to reduce the expenses incurred in repairing and restoring the floor, in lieu of the restoration to the original state. There is no counter-proof evidence.
On the other hand, considering the situation that the plaintiff was the first tenant of the apartment of this case and the scale of the above deposit, the above expenses paid by the defendant do not seem to be excessive as the recovery cost.
Therefore, the unpaid apartment deposit claimed by the plaintiff was deducted from the cost of restoring the apartment to its original state, and the right to claim the return was extinguished.
Since the defendant's argument is reasonable.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.