logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.03.04 2020가단125563
보증금반환
Text

The defendant shall pay 45,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from August 20, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 25, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the C building and D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the lease rate of KRW 45,00,000 from January 25, 2015 to January 25, 2020 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 45,00,000 to the Defendant the lease deposit amount of KRW 45,00.

B. The Plaintiff did not refund KRW 45,000,000,000 upon expiration of the lease term of the instant lease agreement. On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiff received an order of lease registration under the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2020Kao10166, Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2020, and completed the lease registration on the instant real estate due to this reason on July 16, 2020.

(c)

The Plaintiff later delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff delayed damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from August 20, 2020 to the day of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff, according to the plaintiff's claim, the amount of KRW 45,00,000 of the lease deposit under the lease contract of this case and the amount of the delayed damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion,

The defendant asserts that the whole building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, including the real estate in this case, should be sold to third parties and the security deposit for lease should be preferentially refunded to the plaintiff until then. However, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted since the deadline for the return of the security deposit for lease to the plaintiff cannot be extended solely for such reasons.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow