beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
. subject to the claim of the principal office as changed in exchange at the trial.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of the part from No. 4 to No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and addition of the following contents instead, and therefore, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
E. As seen in the foregoing paragraph (c), the instant lease agreement was renewed on April 4, 2014 as the former lease terms, which were the same as the previous lease terms, and terminated on the same day’s lease term. On March 14, 2015, the Defendant voluntarily delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff.
However, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation that there is no obligation to return a lease deposit in excess of KRW 7,471,00 after deducting value-added tax and overdue rent, unjust enrichment, restoration expenses, environmental improvement charges, cleaning expenses of septic tanks, etc. from the lease deposit to be returned to the Defendant as the principal claim. The Defendant seeks reimbursement of KRW 31,200,000,00, which is added by deducting the overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and rent from the counterclaim, and adding the amount of damages for the remainder of the lease deposit and the amount of damages arising from the disposition of business suspension, and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to value-added tax to the space of the instant parking lot.
In the following, the main lawsuit and counterclaim are examined together.
The Defendant’s assertion of the unpaid rent and the unjust enrichment party’s assertion by August 14, 2013 that all the rent was paid until August 14, 2013 does not conflict between the parties, but the Plaintiff asserts that 1.2 million won out of the rent, including value-added tax, was not paid until September 14, 2013, since the monthly rent is KRW 2.2 million including value-added tax, and the Defendant paid all the rent by September 14, 2013.
In the case of a civil judgment on the market, it is already binding on the facts recognized in the judgment of other civil cases.