beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting a deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.4 million, and the period from May 18, 2015 to May 17, 2017, with respect to the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government CD (hereinafter “instant leased object”).
The plaintiff has completed a photographer construction for the purpose of a photographer, and has operated a photographer business in the object of the lease of this case.
B. The contents of the instant lease agreement include the following: (a) the lessee should restore to its original state; (b) the management expenses are included in the monthly rent; and (c) various public charges are borne by the lessee; and (b) the additional tax is paid by applying 2% interest rate per month on the delayed payment of the rent.
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement on August 15, 2017, and the Plaintiff removed from the leased object of this case on or around August 31, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the fact that the obligation to return the lease deposit was established, the Defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
B. The defendant's assertion (1) argues that the defendant's argument only assumes the duty to return KRW 11,892,765, since the defendant deducteds the overdue rent from the lease deposit and the amount of damage caused by the non-performance of restitution to the original state.
Pinland in turn below the end.
(2) From August 1, 2017 to August 31, 2017, the instant lease agreement is recognized as a deduction of 2.640,000 won by mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff retired from the leased object of this case on or around August 31, 2017, on the following grounds: (a) the instant lease agreement was terminated on August 15, 2017 by mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and (b) the Plaintiff retired from the leased object of this case on or around August 31, 2017.