beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. At the same time, the Plaintiff received real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, 22,677,420 won.
Reasons
1. Determination on the claim for refund of deposit and consolation money
A. On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to lease real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”) with a deposit of KRW 30,000,00,000 in advance, and the lease period of KRW 250,000 in advance (hereinafter “the instant lease”) until April 30, 2015, and paid a deposit of KRW 30,000 to the Defendant. As of the closing date of pleadings, the Plaintiff paid a deposit of KRW 30,000 to the Defendant by September 8, 2013 (the Defendant asserted that he was not the tea on September 8, 2013, but it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant loan in light of the statement in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant, or it is recognized in full view of the evidence evidence No. 7.
According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the term, the defendant is obligated to return 23,677,420 won, which was obtained by deducting the sum of 6,322,580 won (250,000 won x 250,000 won x 250,000 won x 9/31) from the total of 30,000 won of lease deposit deposit to the plaintiff from October 30, 2013 to December 9, 2015, which was not received from October 30, 2015.
Furthermore, on February 2, 2014, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the lease deposit, because the third-class tenant of the Bara in the instant case committed suicide and she could not live in the Plaintiff’s room. However, the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with it and continued to live in the instant Ba, thereby causing mental distress, and thus, the Plaintiff should pay consolation money of KRW 3,00,000.
Although there is no dispute between the parties that the third-class tenants of the loan in this case committed suicide in the first-class policeman on February 201, 201, the case where the third-class tenants of the loan in this case committed suicide was committed by the third-class tenants of the loan in this case on the sole basis of the statement of the evidence 1 and 2 of the evidence 6-2.