beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.07.19 2017나57561

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The counterclaim claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 12, 2010, the Lessee entered into a lease agreement with E, representing the counterclaim Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 4 million and monthly rent of KRW 100,000 as to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant housing”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Since the date of entering into the instant lease agreement, the Lessee resided in the instant housing from the date of entering into the instant lease agreement to the date, and improved and repaired part of the instant housing

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, 7, 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The instant housing that asserted by the Lessee was left alone for a long time before the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, and thus, it was necessary for the Large Repair Corporation to live in the nearest state of the closure.

Accordingly, E, an agent of the counterclaim Defendant, agreed that if the counterclaim directly repairs and uses the instant house, the counterclaim Defendant would pay the repair cost to the counterclaim later.

Therefore, since the Lessee accepted the instant house with the cost of KRW 23,820,500, the Counterclaim Defendant is obligated to pay 23,820,500 as the repair cost agreed upon to the Counterclaim Plaintiff or the amount claimed for reimbursement of expenses under the lease agreement and delay damages.

B. The counterclaim Defendant’s counterclaim Defendant did not agree to pay the repair cost of the instant house to the counterclaim Plaintiff via his agent E, and the counterclaim agreed to waive the right to reimbursement of the cost in advance at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement. As such, the counterclaim Defendant did not have an obligation to pay the said repair cost to the counterclaim.

3. Determination

A. First, if the counterclaim Defendant directly repairs the instant house to the counterclaim through E, a representative, the instant house.