1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 9,281,00 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from April 3, 2015 to January 13, 2016; and (b) January 14, 2016.

1. The key merchant, from the Defendant on March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff, the merchant of the issue, was holding office as an auxiliary commercial activity for the building C in Seosan City (a deposit of KRW 60 million, KRW 950,000, KRW 950,000), and the said lease agreement was terminated on March 28, 2015, and the mail verifying the purport that the Plaintiff delivered the said building to the Defendant on April 3, 2015, served the Defendant, and the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 47,428,00 among the above deposit, to the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should receive 12,572,00 won of the remainder deposit from the defendant, and the defendant asserts that 12,572,00 won should be deducted from the security deposit, which is the sum of 2,981,00 won of appraisal fee, 3,291,00 won of defect repair fee, 6,300 won of damages, and 6,300,000 won of compensation.

The key issue of this case is whether appraisal fees, defect repair expenses, and damages payable can be deducted from the security deposit.

2. Determination

A. Appraisal fees can be paid only through the procedure for the determination of litigation costs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 2000). All expenses incurred in the instant lawsuit ought to be calculated through separate procedures, so the unpaid deposit cannot be deducted from the unpaid deposit.

B. In full view of the records of Gap evidence No. 1 (cost for restoration), Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, the result of this court’s on-site inspection, appraiser D’s appraisal results, and the whole purport of pleadings, the plaintiff’s burden of restoration upon termination of the lease contract of this case can be acknowledged as constituting 3,291,00.

shall be deducted from the unpaid deposit.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant incurred damages due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the duty to restore the leased property, thereby failing to seek another lessee. However, as seen earlier, the cost of restitution is not more than KRW 3,291,00, and the cost of restitution is less than KRW 3,291,00, and according to the evidence examined earlier, it is the old age