Text
1. In accordance with the purport of the counterclaim extended by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in the trial, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the counterclaim.
Reasons
In the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff filed a main claim seeking delivery of real estate, and the defendant filed a counterclaim claiming payment of damages, and the court of first instance declared a judgment citing only part of the main claim and the counterclaim claim.
Accordingly, the defendant filed an appeal only on the counterclaim, and added the claim for return of the unclaimed lease deposit at the trial.
Therefore, only the counterclaim claim in the first instance court and the lease deposit claim added in the first instance court shall be subject to the judgment of this court.
Basic Facts
In addition, the court's explanation of this part of the claim for damages is the same as the entry of "1. Basic Facts" and "decision on the counterclaim" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
On January 22, 2016, the defendant alleged by the parties to the claim on the part of the claim for the return of the deposit for lease added at the trial. However, on January 22, 2016, the plaintiff did not refund KRW 1,500,000 out of the deposit for lease.
However, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the electricity cost of KRW 7,860, gas cost of KRW 62,240, and the water rate of KRW 20,300. Thus, the defendant is entitled to recover the remainder of KRW 1,409,60 after deducting the above amount.
Plaintiff’s assertion
In the above 1,409,600 won, the expenses for repairing the building damaged by the defendant must be deducted.
In other words, it is necessary to deduct repairing costs for drillings, drillings for the installation of air conditioners, etc. in order to install broken tampons and digital key.
Judgment
The fact that the unclaimed lease deposit was 1,500,000, there is no dispute between the parties.
On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion as to repair cost, and rather, the plaintiff himself is a new digital key to the entrance after he was delivered the building of this case from the defendant.