logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.04.22 2015나29715
지연손해금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2013, the Plaintiff, from the Defendant, set the deposit amount of KRW 35 million, annual rent of KRW 35 million, term of lease from October 2013 to April 27, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant deposit amount of KRW 35 million, and the Defendant paid KRW 35 million.

B. However, the above lease contract was terminated because the Defendant, who leased the instant building from Nonparty D, failed to perform his/her duty under the lease contract, and the said clan leased the instant building to Nonparty E on November 15, 2014, making it impossible for the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the instant building any longer.

C. The Plaintiff failed to comply with the obligation of the Defendant to allow the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the instant building as Suwon District Court Decision 2014Da514505, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the deposit on the ground that the instant sub-lease contract was terminated by the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the contract, and “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 35 million” as the purport of the claim, and the said court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on December 12, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

(hereinafter “instant final judgment”) d.

However, notwithstanding the final judgment of this case, the Defendant did not refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant delayed the payment of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff even though it was obligated to refund the deposit amount of KRW 35 million under the instant sub-lease contract to the Plaintiff according to the final judgment of the instant case, so the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff at the annual rate of 5% as stipulated by the Civil Act from December 13, 2014, the following day after the final judgment of the instant case, to April 12, 2015, which the Plaintiff seeks.

arrow