1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant, setting the lease period from August 2013 to July 31, 2018, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,400,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and thereafter, leased the instant real estate from around that time.

B. On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement due to the issue of monthly rent.

C. After the termination of the lease agreement of this case, the Defendant returned KRW 68,886,180 to the Plaintiff, which deducted the sum of KRW 13,113,800,00, of the overdue rent of KRW 4,840,00, of the lease deposit of this case; KRW 4,43,00,00, of the rental deposit of this case; KRW 4,43,00, urban gas fees of KRW 648,850, water supply fees; KRW 445,00, and KRW 2,68,00,00, and KRW 13,113,80.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Defendant’s deduction of KRW 4,43,00 for the mobile cost of septic tanks, and KRW 2,688,00 for the cost of water pressure construction, from among the amount that the Defendant deducted from the deposit for lease, the aforementioned amount is not subject to deduction, it is obligated to return it.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 8,00,000 to the Plaintiff at the cost of removal of signboards, water scoos, etc. installed on the second floor of the instant real estate in the course of cancelling the instant lease agreement and leaving the area. However, even though the Plaintiff did not pay the duty to restore to the Defendant under a special contract of the instant lease, the Plaintiff was obliged to pay the Plaintiff the cost of removal due to the Defendant’s improper demand.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the Defendant has a duty to return the cost of mobility of septic tanks to the Defendant in determining the cost of mobility of septic tanks.