▲ The above picture is not directly related to the content of the article.


The court ruled that the full amount of the deposit should be returned to the landlord who did not return the deposit for various reasons, such as that there were two people living in the one-room apartment.



According to the Korea Legal Aid Corporation today (24th), Judge Kim Young-il of the Gyeongju branch of the Daegu District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the lawsuit for the return of the rental deposit paid by Tenant A against Landlord B.

It is determined that B should return the deposit of 2 million won in full. 



According to the court, Mr. A leased a 14-pyeong studio in Gyeongju, Gyeongbuk, in 2020 with a deposit of 2 million won and a monthly rent of 430,000 won. 



Mr. A moved to another studio at the end of the contract period, but Mr. B, the owner of the house, said, "As a result of deducting the deposit because of Mr. A, there is no deposit to return." 



Mr. B said, "At the time of the rental contract, Mr. A said that he lived alone, so the monthly rent was set at 430,000 won, but in reality, a person living with him lived there." 



He also claimed that the tenant living downstairs moved because of Mr. A's noise, and after that, other tenants did not come in for 3 months, so they did not receive their monthly rent, and claimed that they lost 1.29 million won.  



In addition, he said that he had to deduct 420,000 won for changing the wallpaper and fan because of Mr. A's smoking, and 260,000 won for saying that his spouse had an MRI scan due to the mental stress caused by Mr. A. 




In response to Mr. B's claim, Mr. A said, "Sometimes a friend has visited, but I did not live there." He said, "I never made a special noise. Please provide a basis for the claim that the occupant downstairs moved out because of me."

He also emphasized that he is a non-smoker. 



Attorney Yoo Hyun-kyung from the Korea Legal Aid Corporation pointed out, "There was no condition for the number of residents in the rental agreement, and the failure to find a tenant downstairs is a separate issue from Mr. A." 



In relation to the deduction of the MRI examination fee for Mr. B's spouse, she said, "It is not common sense to have an MRI scan to test for mental stress rather than trauma." 



The court accepted all of Mr. A's arguments.

Judge Kim said, "There is no information about the additional room rent in the lease agreement, and there is no evidence to admit that they lived together. Also, it is difficult to conclude that the cause of the occupants' occupancy downstairs is entirely due to noise. There is no objective data about it.” 



This is a 'news pick'.



(Photo = Captured from the website of the Korea Legal Aid Corporation)