logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.24 2015가단158485
임대차보증금 등
Text

1. The defendant delivered 3,800. The defendant's delivery from the plaintiff to the plaintiff of "Seoul Metropolitan Government Daro 104, 200.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 25, 201, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit of KRW 40,00,000 monthly rent of KRW 100,000, and the lease term of KRW 21,50 on May 21, 2011 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and paid the deposit money to the Defendant on May 21, 201, as well as May 21, 201.

B. The confirmation and explanatory note of a residential building prepared by a licensed real estate agent at the time of the above lease agreement is all normal; all facilities inside and outside the instant real estate (water supply system, electricity, gas, heating system, drainage system, etc.); there is no rupture and leakage on the wall; and the state of distribution is common.

C. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant real estate lease agreement, which was explicitly renewed by sending the mail verifying the content of July 14, 2015, and demanded the payment of KRW 3,896,000 in total, for the amount of KRW 40,000,000 for the instant real estate lease deposit and for the amount of the repair cost incurred by the damage caused by water leakage, and for the amount of public charges overduely paid by the former lessee (=3,896,000 for the amount of KRW 3,760,000 for the repair cost).

As of May 21, 201, the Plaintiff did not pay to the Defendant the sum of KRW 6,200,000,000,000 for the monthly rent or the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent or rent under the instant lease agreement, which is up to 62 months from May 21, 201 to the date of closing the argument in the instant case, and used

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 7, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Since the Plaintiff’s portion of the claim for return of the deposit for lease that was made on July 14, 2015 reached the Defendant around that time, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated around October 14, 2015, which was three months from the date on which the Defendant was notified, and the Defendant is obligated to return the deposit to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s portion of claiming reimbursement of expenses is interest.

arrow