(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2020.02.04 2019가단4690

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) 창원지방법원진주지원 2020.02.04 2019가단4690

임대차보증금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 6, 2019 to August 1, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) On January 14, 2017, the Plaintiff leased a studio building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) E (hereinafter “the instant studio”) located in Jinju-si, under the respective terms, from February 6, 2017 to February 5, 2019, the lease deposit amount of KRW 45 million, and the lease term of the studio (hereinafter “instant studio”)

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). (2) Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the said lease deposit to C, and transferred it to the studio of this case around February 6, 2017.

B. The Defendant purchased the instant real estate from C on February 1, 2017, and the same month.

3. Completion of the registration of ownership transfer.

C. (1) Around January 5, 2019, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that “A prior to the expiration of the lease agreement, there is no intention to renew the lease agreement of this case, and immediately upon the expiration of the lease term, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that “the refund of the lease deposit for the lease deposit is requested.”

(2) However, the Defendant did not refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff even after the lease term of this case expired on February 5, 2019.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, whole purport of pleadings]

2. In light of the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff seems to continuously disclose the intention of delivery of the room of this case to the defendant before the expiration of the lease term of this case and continuously demand the return of the lease deposit. Thus, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have provided the duty of delivery of the room of this case. In full view of the above facts, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the lease deposit of this case 45 million won and damages for delay.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원진주지원 2020.02.04 2019가단4690

-울산지방법원 2014.12.26 2014가단13586

-수원지방법원 2020.07.15 2020가합11998

-대구지방법원안동지원 2019.10.16 2019가단20580