logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.12.24 2020나54737
임대차보증금
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease deposit of KRW 30,000,000, the rent of KRW 300,000, and the lease deposit from May 23, 2015 to May 22, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid the Defendant the lease deposit.

B. From December 2, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant housing was no longer able to reside due to aging or damage on several occasions, and thus, the Plaintiff returned the lease deposit to the Defendant as he/she had no intent to maintain the instant lease contract after May 22, 2018.

C. On November 19, 2018, the Plaintiff, upon receipt of the Housing Lease Registration Order issued by this Court 2018Kao262, completed the Housing Lease Registration on December 31, 2018, and later delivered the instant housing to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, it is reasonable to view that the lease contract of this case which is implicitly renewed has terminated around May 22, 2018 upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease contract. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 30,000,000 won for lease deposit and the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 27, 2019 to November 27, 2019, the day following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant.

The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from May 23, 2018, but according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff appears to have not delivered the instant house even before January 28, 2019, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had performed the duty of delivery of the instant house before filing the instant lawsuit, and thus, it exceeds the scope of recognition.

arrow