(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2020.10.15 2020가단3075

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) 대전지방법원천안지원 2020.10.15 2020가단3075

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 120,000,000 and the term of July 20, 2016 to the lease period of KRW 120,000,000, and between July 20, 2016 and July 19, 2018.

B. On July 6, 2018, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to refund the lease deposit upon the termination date as the Plaintiff did not intend to extend the instant lease contract, and the Defendant responded to the repayment of the lease deposit by November 30, 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 120,000,000, barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the term of the instant lease contract was not terminated by agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff to extend the term of the lease of this case more than two years, but it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff on the extension of the term of the lease of this case only with Gap evidence 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Next, the defendant asserts that he deposited the security deposit of the instant lease agreement to the plaintiff.

The fact that the Defendant deposited 120,000,000 won to the Plaintiff with the consideration for the delivery of the instant real estate after the instant lawsuit was filed does not conflict between the parties. Since the obligation to return the lessor’s deposit and to deliver the leased object is in the simultaneous performance relationship, the Defendant’s deposit for repayment is valid, and the Plaintiff’s claim for repayment of the lease deposit is groundless.

4. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2020.07.21 2019가단218267

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.14 2015가단5391485

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.12.07 2018가합102433

-부산지방법원 2017.05.25 2016가단47344

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.09.18 2019가단109625