beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 28, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 400,000, and the lease period of KRW 30,00,00 from October 31, 2012 to April 8, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On October 31, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the said lease deposit amount of KRW 5,00,000,000 to the Defendant.
B. Upon the expiration of the lease term upon the expiration of the lease term, the Plaintiff did not receive a refund of the deposit for lease under the instant lease agreement from the Defendant, but moved to another wife on April 8, 2013, but did not inform the Defendant of the entrance and password of the instant apartment in order to receive the said deposit.
C. On June 13, 2013, the Defendant returned KRW 3,288,557 of the above lease deposit to the Plaintiff, and had a new tenant move into the instant apartment, thereby being handed over by the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, or facts deemed to have been led to a confession because of no clear dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unclaimed lease deposit KRW 1,711,443 (=5,00,000-3,288,557) and the delay damages therefrom, barring special circumstances.
B. The Defendant asserted that since the Plaintiff occupied the instant apartment from April 9, 2013 to June 13, 2013, the Defendant should deduct KRW 1,00,000 of the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent during the lease deposit to be returned to the Plaintiff from the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent should be deducted from the lease deposit to be returned to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the benefit in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that it was benefiting without any legal grounds is substantial.