beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 13, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife jointly concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant setting the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D202 (hereinafter “instant housing”) as a deposit amount of KRW 70 million and the term of lease from November 3, 2012 to November 3, 2014, and jointly paid KRW 70 million to the Defendant.
B. Around January 2016, upon receipt of a request from C to terminate the above lease agreement and return the lease deposit, the Defendant returned KRW 7 million around January 3, 2016, and KRW 63 million around January 20, 2016, respectively, and C transferred the instant house to the Defendant around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties asserts that the claims for the return of the lease deposit by the joint lessee should be divided in equal ratio to each of the joint lessee as a divided claim. Thus, the defendant asserts that the lease deposit should be returned to the plaintiff KRW 1/2 of the lease deposit.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that C was delegated by the plaintiff with the right to terminate the above lease agreement and to receive the deposit, and that the above right is included in the scope of the daily agency business, and that even if it exceeds the scope of the daily agency business, the defendant has justifiable grounds to believe C was entitled to such right, and that the defendant has fulfilled the obligation to return the deposit by returning the deposit to C in full.
B. Determination
A. That the obligation of multiple lessees is a joint and several obligation (Article 654 and Article 616 of the Civil Act), that is, the lessee’s status in a lease agreement, such as the right to use and take profits from the leased object, is indivisible by its nature, and that a joint lessee’s obligation to return a deposit is indivisible by its nature (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da43137, Dec. 8, 1998), and that there is no reason to view otherwise the nature of the obligation to return the deposit of a joint lessee.