(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.06.03 2015가단42961

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.06.03 2015가단42961

임대차보증금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 29, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 5, 2010, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) a leased deposit with the Defendant’s KRW 50 million, and with the term of November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant as the lease deposit on November 15, 2010.

B. After that, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed, and on September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement, either orally, and removed from the instant house on November 15, 2014, and on October 1, 2015, notified the Defendant of his/her intent to request the refund of the lease deposit, as the instant lease agreement was terminated by proving the content thereof again.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact-finding, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement in early September 2014 includes the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to refuse to renew the lease agreement. As such, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on November 15, 2014.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 29, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the instant complaint.

3. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion provides that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request for return of lease deposit until the transfer of the key, etc. to the house of this case. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff demanded termination of the lease contract of this case from the first patrolman on September 2014 and moved out from the house of this case around November 15, 2014, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff delivered the house of this case to the defendant through lawful performance provision.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.10.15 2015나2024162

-제주지방법원 2019.10.02 2018나13653

-수원지방법원 2018.07.11 2017나11718

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.20 2015가단5342889

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.18 2015가단5363565