beta
Text
1. Of the counterclaims against the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) that exceeds the amount ordered to be paid below.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the party members of the court of first instance should explain this case are changing the "each of the buildings of this case" as the "real estate of this case" under Section 6, No. 5 of the court of first instance, and the "it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff did not succeed to the status of the lessor of the lease contract of this case, the plaintiff provided performance for the return of the lease deposit of this case, or the amount equivalent to the rent for the use of each of the real estate of this case exceeds the interest amount on the lease deposit of this case," and the "decision on the claim for counterclaim against the defendant on March 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance" of the court of first instance is changed to the "the part on the claim for counterclaim against the defendant on March 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance," and therefore, it is decided to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Revised Parts
3. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim
A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff acquired the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement, and the instant lease agreement expired on January 1, 2014, and the Defendant delivered each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on April 10, 2014, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 50 million and delay damages to the Defendant, barring any special circumstance.
B. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that on May 27, 2015 and June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 34,800,000 won as the lease deposit of this case, plus 16,00 won as well as interest for delay pursuant to the judgment of the first instance court, the Plaintiff left 15,184,000 won out of the deposit.
(2) The plaintiff paid KRW 34,816,00 as part of the lease deposit of this case as above does not clearly dispute the defendant, and eventually, the plaintiff should return it to the defendant.