1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the three floors of building in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 600,000,000, and the period from October 2, 2013 to October 2, 2014.

(hereinafter “Lease of this case”). (b)

On October 2, 2014, the Defendant, upon the expiration of the lease term of this case, returned the pertinent lease deposit and delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff. At the time, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the cost of removing the partitions and the water rate of KRW 200,000 and KRW 100,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff for additional removal costs.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. After the termination of the lease of this case by the Plaintiff’s assertion, KRW 1.1 million was required to restore the building of this case to its original state. Since the Defendant did not settle the electricity rates of KRW 51,470 and water rates of KRW 172,620, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 1,124,090 [=90,000 + KRW 51,470 + KRW 170 + KRW 172,620] and delay damages.

B. (1) The Plaintiff alleged that the cost of restitution was required to be KRW 1.1 million, but only the statement in Gap evidence 4 (Written Estimate) was required to restore the building of this case to its original state.

It is difficult to recognize facts or necessity and there is no other evidence to prove them.

Since the defendant is the person who will take 367,00 won as the recovery cost, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 167,000 won after deducting the amount of 200,000 won paid in advance by the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

(2) The Plaintiff is liable to pay the Defendant the amount exceeding the average water rate of 114,00 won prior to the Plaintiff’s fault.