(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.03.29 2015가단31769

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.03.29 2015가단31769

임차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,800,000 and the interest rate thereon from November 20, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff, from the Defendants on September 16, 2014, set the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 400,000 (300,000 for wife sound three months) and the lease period of KRW 300,00,00 not separately determined.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Around January 2015, the Plaintiff requested the return of the lease deposit by sending a certificate of the content that the Plaintiff would terminate the lease deposit because it did not set the period under the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant sent a certificate of the purport that he would return the lease deposit if the term of the instant lease agreement was recognized as one year on September 18, 2015, by recognizing the term of the instant lease agreement as one year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants are obligated to pay 35,800,000 won, which deducts the overdue charge out of the lease deposit as requested by the Plaintiff, and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the next day from November 20, 2015 to the day of complete payment, which is the last day of service of a copy of the complaint.

Although the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff suffered losses from the discontinuance of soup, making soup on the wind that the Plaintiff operates the KONer in a unfaithful manner, the Defendants merely did not have any evidence to acknowledge it, and such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to the exemption from the obligation to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대구고등법원 2017.10.25 2016나27321

-서울남부지방법원 2019.06.27 2018나3606

-울산지방법원 2019.01.16 2018가단63619

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.16 2020가단4940

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.04 2016나56358