logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.18 2016나4515
계약금반환 및 위약금
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 first instance court.

Reasons

1. Presumed facts

A. On February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a tax lease agreement with the Defendant on the basis of deposit deposit of KRW 70 million with respect to subparagraph 201 of the Jung-gu, Ansan-si C non-dong 201.

(2) The Plaintiff paid the down payment amount of KRW 5 million to the Defendant on the same day. The Plaintiff paid the down payment to the Defendant on the same day.

(b)The principal terms of the lease agreement are as follows:

Article 2 (Duration) The lessor shall deliver the said real estate to the lessee by April 15, 2015 in a condition that it can be used for the purpose of the lease, and the lease period shall be from the date of delivery to April 15, 2018 (36 months).

Matters of special agreement

2. The lessor shall lease the said house by checking the existence of any facilities, such as water leakage, rupture and boiler, and on the register;

5. The directors’ day and the balance day shall be as mentioned above, but they may be advanced by mutual agreement.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff determined the delivery date of real estate between the Defendant and the remainder payment date on April 10, 2015 through a licensed real estate agent who arranged the above lease contract.

On April 5, 2015, the pre-resident residing in the instant real estate was removed from the dwelling room, inner room, small room removal, and the Defendant commenced construction of boiler construction, stove, installation of stove, and partial crime prevention windows, and the boiler room coloring.

E. On April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff visited the instant real estate to find out the progress of construction as above and provided to the Defendant that it is impossible to move into the said real estate by April 10, 2015, and the Defendant sent text messages with the following content to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2015.

The author argues that the real estate return the deposit, as it has to take a certain portion of the responsibility for the cancellation of the contract, and that the return of the real estate would have been made if the return of the real estate was made.

Therefore, it is necessary to dysnize the tenant's real estate with the thickness of the tenant.

Real estate and uniform issues are good.

arrow