1. The decision subject to review shall be revoked.

2. The defendant (the defendant) shall pay 18,244,00 won to the plaintiff (the plaintiff) for each of them.

The plaintiff in the judgment subject to a retrial brought a lawsuit against the defendants against this court as the court 2014da524205.

The above court held on October 22, 2015 that the security deposit received in the lease of real estate guarantees all the lessee's obligations arising from the lease, such as the lease deposit and the liability for damages arising from the loss of, damage to, etc., and thus, the security deposit amount is naturally deducted from the security deposit without any separate declaration of intention, unless there are special circumstances, when the object is returned after the termination of the lease relationship. The judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's claim on October 22, 2015 on the ground that the amount of the rent and the management fee payable from the security deposit remains. The above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence No. 7, and the plaintiff's assertion that there exists a cause for a retrial that is obvious to this court, the plaintiff asserts that there is a cause for a retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial, since the false statement of witness B was evidence

Judgment

B was issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 5 million due to perjury for the following criminal facts as Suwon District Court Decision 2017 High Court Branch Decision 2017 High Court Decision 2089, and the above order was finalized as it is.

B around 16:00 on September 17, 2015, the Suwon District Court No. 4-No. 202 of the Suwon District Court, which was 120, was present as a witness in the lawsuit for the claim for collection of money in the above court No. 2014Da524205, and taken an oath.

B At the time of the examination of the witness, "F, the lessor, before returning the lease deposit, was caused from the restoration to its original state.

Around May 2013, the rent was still continuously deducted, and the payment of the rent was sent to F by registration to F with a claim for the return of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis. The F said that “I wish to recognize the restoration to the original state.”

However, there has been no money yet to be restored to its original state.

Therefore, the lease deposit remains after all of the rents are deducted.