beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.10.07 2014나20094

이사비용 추가금 및 손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 16, 2012, the Plaintiff and C entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and the Defendant, setting the deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 400,000, and the period from January 18, 2012 to January 17, 2014, with respect to subparagraph 8510 of the 5th, Busan Northern-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-do, Busan-do.

B. On January 14, 2014, prior to the expiration date of the instant lease agreement with the Defendant, the Plaintiff agreed to order the leased object. Accordingly, the Plaintiff intended to order the leased object on the said date, and the Defendant transferred KRW 25,500,000, which deducted the overdue rent from the leased deposit, to C at the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the date when the lease object was named at least one month prior to the termination of the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant did not take any measures to demand the Plaintiff to return the remainder of the lease deposit during the said period, and subsequently delayed the return of the lease deposit by intentionally demanding the Plaintiff to return the lease deposit to C. The Defendant’s intentional return of the lease deposit was not only paid KRW 520,000 for additional director’s expenses but also the Plaintiff and his family members suffered considerable mental distress. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,50,000 for additional director’s expenses and mental distress. 2) At the time of one month prior to the Defendant’s assertion of the leased object, the Defendant was said to have received the remainder of the lease deposit from C, and the Defendant, a joint lessee, the Defendant, as a joint lessee, obtained the Plaintiff’s consent.