logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.06.10 2019나2368
임대보증금반환
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. A.

The defendant shall enter the attached Form from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant house owned by the Defendant with the lease term from October 20, 2016 to October 20, 2018, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent, and KRW 150,000, respectively (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she had no intent to renew the instant lease agreement on June 20, 2018; on the other hand, the Plaintiff did not deliver the instant house to the Defendant until the date of the closing of the arguments in the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the time, there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obliged to return the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant house from the Plaintiff.

2. On the judgment of the defendant's grounds for appeal, the defendant defense that the plaintiff's unpaid rent obligations and unjust enrichment arising after the termination of the lease contract of this case should be deducted from the lease deposit under the lease contract of this case.

The security deposit received from the lease of real estate guarantees all the obligations of the lessee due to the lease, such as the rent and the liability for damages arising from the loss of, damage to, etc. of an object, and the amount equivalent to the secured obligation is naturally deducted from the security deposit, even without any separate declaration of intention, when the object is returned after the termination of the lease relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da50729, Dec. 7, 1999). B of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments, according to the whole purport of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff did not pay to the Defendant for the nine-month period (one-month period, April, 5, six months, August, 2017, March, April, April, July, July, July, July, July, July, 2018, and September, October, 21, 2018).

arrow