logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.02.14 2018나13434
월세금 청구
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease period of KRW 1,00,000 from November 9, 2015 to November 9, 2017, as the lease period of KRW 20,000 for the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On November 9, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and around June 24, 2018, ordered the Plaintiff to order the instant building.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,90,00,00,00,00 from November 9, 2015 to June 9, 2018 (20,000 per month x 31 months), which was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, for KRW 2,20,00,000, deposit money, KRW 1,000, and KRW 1,300,000, which was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and KRW 3,300,00,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s assertion, as well as the rent paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff, should have been paid in cash for the period of 31 months, except for the rent paid in December 2017, April 2018, and was not paid in cash during the period of 31 months.

B. As to whether the Defendant paid the entire rent except that of three-months, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant paid the rent except that of KRW 2,200,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff, as to whether the Defendant paid the rent. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

As to whether the difference should be reduced due to the defect of the building of this case, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 10 and 11 (including the number of branch numbers) as to whether the difference should be reduced, the change of the building of this case is normal for a considerable period of time.

arrow