logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2016.08.09 2016가단2967
임대차보증금반환 등
Text

1. The Defendants are four-story offices and four-story offices of reinforced concrete structure (refinite) concrete roof from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Indication of Claim: Defendant B is the owner of No. 301 listed in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”); Defendant C is the child of Defendant B, who acts as an agent for the management and lease of the instant building.

On July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant building from Defendant B with a deposit of KRW 20,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 230,000, and the lease term of KRW 7, 200,000 from July 7, 2014 to July 6, 2015. The said lease term was implicitly renewed after the expiration of the lease term, and the Plaintiff notified the termination of the contract on December 2015.

After that, Defendant C prepared a letter of payment to the Plaintiff to refund the lease deposit by February 15, 2016. If the Defendants did not refund the lease deposit by the date of the agreement, Defendant C agreed to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1,348,000 (contract deposit KRW 1,00,000, cleaning cost KRW 200,000, and brokerage fee KRW 148,000) paid by the Plaintiff to another place.

However, the Defendants were fully paid KRW 300,000 to the Plaintiff on February 29, 2016, the agreed date, and thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21,048,000 ( KRW 1,348,000, KRW 3000 - KRW 300,000) and delay damages.

2. Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act and against Defendant 1)

3. Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act and against Defendant 2)

arrow