logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.07.16 2019나107454
임대차보증금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 26, 2014, the mother of the Plaintiff under the lease agreement between E and the Defendant, and the Defendant, on June 26, 2014, concluded a lease agreement with respect to the Jung-gu Daejeon apartment D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant, with the lease deposit of KRW 7,7130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, monthly rent, and the lease period from August 1, 2014 to August 1, 2016.

Since that time, the Plaintiff and E resided in the apartment of this case.

B. A lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 1, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (i.e., the date when the said lease agreement is terminated) around 15:00 on August 1, 2016, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, whereby the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the lessee are the Plaintiff, the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant apartment with the deposit amount of KRW 110 million and the lease period from August 1, 2016 to August 1, 2018 (hereinafter “first lease agreement”).

2) E drafted a written confirmation of change of name on July 29, 2016, stating that “The principal does not raise any objection to the refund of the rental deposit upon the expiration of the lease term due to change in the name of the lease contract” to the Defendant.

3) On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 63 million to the Defendant as the increased portion of the lease deposit. On the same day, the Defendant returned KRW 30,130,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s account. According to the lease agreement stated in the foregoing paragraph (a) above, the amount of KRW 7,713,000,000,000,000 paid to the Defendant is KRW 32,870,000,000 (=63,000,000 - 30,0130,000). (c) Since the conclusion of the lease agreement between E and the Defendant on August 1, 2016, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement under the same provision as the lease agreement in the instant case between E and the Defendant (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) and recovered the original.

2. Plaintiff 2.

arrow