(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.11.02 2017나51016

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.11.02 2017나51016

지연손해금 청구

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

3. Action.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, with the exception that “The Defendant returned the lease deposit to the Plaintiff on April 18, 2012,” stating that “The Defendant returned the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.”

Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Judgment on the main claim

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On June 15, 201, upon the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant returned the lease deposit amount of KRW 540 million to the Defendant on April 18, 2012. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay due to delay in the return of the lease deposit for the period from June 16, 201 to April 17, 2012 pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Lease Agreement (i.e., KRW 109,006,027 (i.e., KRW 540,000 x KRW 307/365 x 24%). (ii) The Defendant cannot be exempted from the above liability on the ground of provisional attachment on the leased deposit repayment claim.

B. According to the facts of the above determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay in the return of the lease deposit after the termination of the lease contract, except in extenuating circumstances, since the Defendant returned the lease deposit on April 18, 2012, even though the lease contract of this case was terminated on June 15, 2011.

C. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion on succession to the right of lease is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the judgment of the first instance (from May to June 6, 190) is written except where “A No. 14” in the fifth 5th 15th son of the judgment of the first instance is deemed “B No. 12-3” in the same part.

(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act).

The defendant's assertion that the defendant's simultaneous performance defense is judged.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2014.01.17 2013가단18582

-부산지방법원 2017.10.18 2016가합40517

-서울서부지방법원 2015.04.24 2015노273

-부산고등법원 2018.06.21 2017나57762

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.26 2015나65355