beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and Busandong D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, and the lease term of KRW 24 months from May 4, 2017 to May 3, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant and occupied the instant real estate after delivery.
B. The instant lease contract was terminated upon the expiration of the contract term.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff as a lessor after deducting the Defendant’s monthly rent from the unpaid monthly rent following the termination of the instant lease agreement.
However, the Plaintiff asserts that the unpaid monthly rent of KRW 1,900,000 should be deducted from the lease deposit, and the Defendant asserts that the unpaid monthly rent of KRW 4,100,000 should be deducted from the deposit for the lease contract period and the subsequent profit-making period.
B. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,500,000 to the Defendant a sum of monthly salary under the instant lease agreement. Thus, it can be recognized that the monthly rent that the Plaintiff did not pay during the instant lease agreement period (i.e., KRW 4,800,000 for the two-year lease period) is KRW 2,300,000 for the monthly rent (=2,500,000 for the two-year lease period).
Therefore, the defendant, as to the plaintiff's 7,700,000 won, subtracting the monthly payment of KRW 2,300,000 from KRW 10,000,000, and as to the plaintiff's 7,700,000 from January 22, 2020, the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, is a considerable dispute as to the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation, until November 26, 2020, which is the date of the decision of this court.