beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled and taken.
Reasons
1. As to the cause of claim
A. Since the alleged lessee agreed to restore the facility to its original state upon the destruction of the facility, the Defendant is obligated to pay the lessor the repair cost of the bathing tank and the repair cost of the funeral hall of KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff.
B. On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff leased C 1508 Dong 403 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Defendant on July 20, 2012, the terms of the lease period from August 24, 2012 to August 23, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to restore the instant apartment to its original state at the time of the destruction of the facilities (hereinafter “the instant lease”). (2) The confirmation of the object of brokerage and the explanatory note prepared at the time of the instant lease are indicated as “a drainage: normal”.
3) On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff inspected the instant apartment on delivery, and received KRW 200,000 from the Defendant, claiming that remote areas and decorations were destroyed and damaged. At that time, the Defendant maintained the funeral hall at the time, but the repair cost of KRW 200,000 was preserved to D (E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office) who arranged the lease of this case. After which the Plaintiff collected the said money later, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay for the bathing repair cost, stating that “the Plaintiff damaged the hiverse of toxic chemicals such as chlorate.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1 to 10, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
C. Determination 1) The descriptions and images of B/C No. 2-11 (B/C) evidence No. 2-11 (B/C), A’s evidence No. 3 (B/C), A’s evidence No. 4 (W/C), and A’s evidence No. 5 (C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C/C) are insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant damaged the
3 In conclusion, the defendant's obligation to perform is determined from November 6, 2014, which is the following day after the apartment was delivered to the plaintiff with KRW 200,000 and the apartment of this case.