(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.07.25 2018가단53576

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) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.07.25 2018가단53576

보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant is a multi-household house with four floors of Masan-si, Masan-si, Masan-si C ground reinforced concrete structure.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on March 16, 2013 with respect to 202 houses (46.62m2; hereinafter "the instant housing") out of 140.48m2 of the second floor of the 140.48m2 of the 2nd floor of the 4th floor of Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Seosan-si, and the defendant entered into the lease agreement (hereinafter "the instant lease agreement") with the period from April 30, 2013 to April 29, 2015. The plaintiff notified the defendant of the return of the lease deposit and the return of the lease deposit to the defendant on April 30, 2013 to April 29, 2015.

According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was renewed and terminated on or around March 29, 2018 by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff.

(1) The plaintiff filed a claim for damages for delay from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment. However, as seen below, unless the plaintiff did not perform the obligation of delivery of the house of this case, which is the simultaneous performance obligation of this case that the plaintiff bears to the defendant, the claim for this part is without merit). 2. The defendant's defense of this case is a defense of simultaneous performance that the plaintiff cannot accept the claim of this case from the plaintiff until the delivery date of the house of this case. Thus, since there is no dispute between the parties that deliver the house of this case to the plaintiff at the time of the lease contract of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to deliver the house of this case to the defendant, and the

Therefore, the defendant's above defense is justified.

3. Conclusion, the Defendant’s delivery of the instant house from the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원김천지원 2020.02.04 2019가단36208

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.07 2019가단4678

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.19 2016가단5036976

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.02.04 2014가단33185