Tenant does not want to pay the rental deposit - damage is time-barred

What does the reasoning of the judgment say?
That is decisive here....

It is probably a consequence of the acknowledgement of one party, § 93 ZPO, as an exception to § 91 ZPO (loser pays), possibly with a slightly different weighting by the court.
Or is it said that the costs are offset against each other? Then the result would fit § 92 ZPO.

Court costs are not litigation costs, so excluding attorney fees.

There is no reasoning of the judgment...?

There are three defendants, of which you only won against one and three, two is apparently innocent. Therefore, one-third division? K.

There are three defendants, but you only won against one and three, two is apparently innocent. So a division into thirds? K.

Well, it was the case that the lawyer first summoned the wrong defendant (wrong name)...when I pointed this out to him, he extended the lawsuit to the 3rd defendant...so the 2nd defendant doesn't even exist...only the 1st and 3rd....

I just spoke with my lawyer... he says that it is a "crazy decision" by the court... the splitting into thirds is due to the 3 defendants... one of whom doesn't even exist... but now I am supposed to bear the costs for this error. He wants to file a complaint, but that only starts at 600 euros. It won't be that much... more like 300 euros... but why should I now bear partial costs for the lawyer's mistake..?

Sue the lawyer

Sue the lawyer

I thought so too ))