(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.07.10 2019가단118271

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) 울산지방법원 2020.07.10 2019가단118271

임대차보증금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 125,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 25, 2019 to September 2, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the Ulsan-gu C Apartment D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 125 million from July 14, 2017 to July 13, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease”) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and the Defendant paid the lease deposit of KRW 125 million to the Defendant.

B. On July 9, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she had no intent to renew the instant lease agreement, and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant around August 24, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the lease deposit of KRW 125 million and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act until September 2, 2019, which is the day following the date of delivery of the real estate of this case (the Plaintiff claimed payment of damages for delay from August 24, 2019 as the purport of the claim of this case. However, since the Defendant is liable for delay from the day following the delivery date of the real estate of this case, it is without merit to claim payment of damages for delay on August 24, 2019).

B. The defendant's assertion and its determination are alleged to be the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not restore the bathing condition, etc. of the real estate of this case to its original state even though it destroyed the bathing condition, etc. of this case.

However, since there is no evidence to prove the defendant's assertion, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and remainder.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.02.05 2015가단46042

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.13 2019가합542498

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.11.28 2019가단14646

-수원지방법원안산지원 2020.02.05 2019가단1978

-수원지방법원 2015.10.07 2015나9339