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
purport.
Reasons
1. In full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on February 10, 2014, setting the lease deposit of KRW 10,00,000 and KRW 104 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the Defendant on February 10, 2014 as the lease deposit; and (b) paid KRW 10,00,000,00 to February 10, 2016; and (c) the said lease agreement terminated on February 10, 2016; (d) the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant for the lease deposit; and (e) the Plaintiff paid KRW 132,240 on behalf of the Defendant for long-term repair appropriations for the instant apartment on February 10, 2016; and (e) the Defendant returned the lease deposit to the Plaintiff on February 15, 2016.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid lease deposit KRW 1,00,000 (=10,000,000 - KRW 9,000,000) and the long-term repair appropriations of KRW 132,240 (=1,132,240), including the long-term repair appropriations of KRW 132,240 (i.e., KRW 1,00,000) and the delay damages therefrom.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. In the lease deposit that the Defendant’s argument is returned to the Defendant, there is no money that the Defendant returns to the Plaintiff, if the Defendant deducts ① expenses for replacement and repair of boiler, ② expenses for repair of a boiler, ③ cost for replacement of glass, ④ cost for repair of toilets, ④ cost for repair of toilets, ⑤ cost for recovery from remote areas, ⑤ cost for recovery from the lost oil tank, etc.
B. The Defendant asserted that the costs of replacing and repairing the boiler 1 was different from the boiler originally installed by the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the said repair costs because the boiler in the instant apartment was replaced with the boiler originally installed by the Defendant, or the Plaintiff destroyed the boiler and boiler Belgium. However, the images of the evidence No. 3-4 are different from the boiler installed at the time when the Defendant transferred the instant apartment to the Plaintiff.