logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.21 2014나33820
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. On February 19, 2010, the Plaintiff’s establishment of the Plaintiff’s right to return the lease deposit entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the deposit amount of KRW 15 million with the Defendant for the second-class office in Mapo-gu Seoul, Mapo-gu, Seoul, with the payment of the deposit amount, and the possession and use of the above office and the delivery of the above office to the Defendant on March 3, 2014 upon the expiration of the lease term is not a dispute between the parties, or can be recognized by each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 23 and 25 evidence No. 1 (including the serial number). Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder after deducting the Defendant’s repayment and restitution expenses, etc., which are deemed to be below

2. Determination as to the expenses to be deducted from the lease deposit

A. The Plaintiff is the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 12,040,526 among the above deposit and the fact that the Defendant did not pay KRW 159,80.

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that there is no deposit to be paid to the plaintiff when deducting the expenses for restitution, etc., so the defendant's specific claim for deduction, the defendant's decision on the claim for deduction, and its decision are as listed below.

(1) The statement in the certificate No. 18 (Refundist estimate) No. 18, 250,000 won in the certificate No. 5-2 of the certificate No. 5-2 of the certificate No. 170,000 won in the determination of the amount of the cost of reconstruction due to the non-performance of the restoration of the original state is not sufficient to recognize the costs of re-construction of the re-construction of the re-construction of the second floor No. 5-2 of the certificate No. 4, and there is no evidence to support that there is no evidence to support that the costs of re-construction cannot be recognized, and the costs of re-construction of the re-construction of the re-construction are recognized for the removal of the signboard and the cost of re-construction of the re-construction of the re-construction of the 250,000 won in the certificate No. 5-2 of the certificate No. 280,000 in the certificate No. 5-1, 85,000 won in the purchase of the re-construction costs.

arrow