1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff leased 300 million won as lease deposit, from the Defendant, the second or fourth floor (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) of the second or fourth floor, which is an accommodation, among the building leased by the Plaintiff, in Yong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, and D (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”), from the Defendant, KRW 300 million as lease deposit, from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018, and paid KRW 15 billion as lease deposit to the Defendant around that time.

B. On September 28, 2018, the Plaintiff returned KRW 270 million out of the lease deposit to the Defendant, and around that time, delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, testimony of witness E of the first instance trial, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay 4.7 million won and delay damages to the Plaintiff, except for the remaining lease deposit (i.e., KRW 30 million - KRW 270 million - KRW 270 million) (i.e., the unpaid monthly rent settlement amounting to KRW 20 million, and KRW 5.3 million 5.3 million), which the Plaintiff should be deducted (i.e., the unpaid monthly rent settlement amounting to KRW 20 million), barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion is to deduct KRW 4.7 million from the lease deposit for which the Plaintiff seeks to return (hereinafter “the lease deposit in this case”), ① KRW 2.1 million from the cleaning expenses for the septic tank of the building in this case, ② the heating re-repair expenses for the building in this case damaged during the Plaintiff’s lease period, and KRW 1,738,00 from the heating repair expenses for the building in this case, and KRW 862,00 from the household appliances repair expenses.

In addition, there is no balance of the lease deposit payable to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 4, 5, and 2-1 of the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 2-1 of the purification tank cleaning expense deduction claim (personal use), the Plaintiff at the time when the Plaintiff returned the lease deposit from F, the husband of the Defendant, to F, on September 28, 2018, KRW 2,700,000,000,000 in total, when the Plaintiff returned the lease deposit from F,

H.The above amounts shall be reserved.

“.......”