(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.18 2014나5929

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.18 2014나5929

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff decided to lease Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Btel 1509 and 1510 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) from the Defendant with the term of KRW 9,00,000 per lease deposit, KRW 800,00 per rent (excluding value-added tax), and the term of lease from April 21, 2012 to April 20, 2013. At that time, the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Lease of this case")

Around three months prior to the expiration of the lease term of this case, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he will not renew the lease of this case, and transferred the instant real estate to the Defendant at that time. Around May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff returned the remaining amount after deducting KRW 1,170,000 from the aforementioned lease deposit amount to the Plaintiff, in addition to the unpaid rent from KRW 9,00,000.

C. The Plaintiff paid the management expenses of the instant real estate to Btel management office during the term of the instant lease, together with the long-term repair appropriations of KRW 13,070 (5,725 won for subparagraph 1509 + 7,345 won for subparagraph 1510) monthly.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 3, Eul's 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. On the ground that the plaintiff sought the return of the remainder of lease deposit and long-term repair appropriations on the ground that the lease contract of this case was terminated, the defendant asserts that C is a lessee who entered into the lease contract of this case and the plaintiff is not a party to the lease contract of this case, and the plaintiff has no standing to file the lawsuit of this case.

However, in the lawsuit of performance like the lawsuit of this case, the person who asserts the right to demand performance has standing to sue, and according to each of the above evidence, C is recognized as having entered into the lease contract of this case on behalf of the defendant, and as such, the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

3. The cause of the action.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2015.03.13 2014가단30529

-대구지방법원 2015.11.20 2015가단28408

-의정부지방법원 2015.09.18 2015나52474

-서울북부지방법원 2017.07.13 2016가합1155

-청주지방법원제천지원 2019.11.13 2019가단22070