beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 28,400,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 20, 2013 to February 8, 2017.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, the plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of 50,000 won, monthly rent of 100,000 won, and two years, from the defendant around April 19, 2009 (hereinafter "the real estate in this case"), and the plaintiff paid the above lease deposit to the defendant and resided in the real estate in this case. However, the real estate in this case was awarded a successful bid on May 20, 2013 after entering the auction procedure, and the plaintiff received only KRW 20,00 among the lease deposit and delivered it to the successful bidder on June 19, 2013, and there is no counter-proof evidence.
B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 30 million won of lease deposit (50 million won - 20 million won) unpaid to the plaintiff of Japan and damages for delay from the day following the date on which the plaintiff delivered the real estate of this case.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. As to this, the defendant argues that since the plaintiff did not pay the monthly rent of 16 months, it should be deducted from the refund of the lease deposit, the plaintiff must do so. Thus, the plaintiff did not dispute between the parties that the plaintiff did not pay the amount of 1.6 million won (1.6 million won X16 months) in total for the 16-month monthly rent to the defendant. Thus, this part of the defendant's defense is justified.
B. In addition, the defendant, after entering the auction procedure, tried to show the real estate of this case to the purchaser who wants to sell the real estate of this case to another person, but eventually, the plaintiff and her husband did not show the house to acquire the real estate of this case, and eventually, the plaintiff and her husband were awarded the successful bid. Thus, it is unreasonable to claim the return of the lease deposit of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.