logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.01.10 2019나54334
임대차보증금반환
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 97,784,246 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from December 7, 2018 to January 10, 2020.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) “ August 2, 201,” “Article 10,” “Article 10,” “Article 17,” “Article 17,” “Article 17,” “Article 11,” respectively, shall be added to “Article 7, 11, and the following: (b) Chapter 7, Chapter 12, and Chapter 8, respectively; and (c) Chapter 7, Chapters 12 through 8, 2, the same shall apply to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part “(d)” in the part(s) is “3,” and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant asserts that the portion added “D. The claim for deduction of rent and management fee is 1) The Defendant shall be deducted from the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, ① 1,089,539, management fee for 1,089,539, management fee for April 2014, ② 4,896,730, and ③ the transfer of the instant real estate or the provision of performance thereof after July 2017 from the termination of the instant lease agreement until December 6, 2018.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that: (a) each claim for management expenses for April 2014 and May 201 to be paid by the Defendant on a monthly basis; (b) the period of short-term extinctive prescription for three years was terminated as stipulated in Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act; and (c) the rent and management expenses for June 2014 were paid to the Defendant; and (c) the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and management expenses for the period from July 2017 to December 6, 2018 claimed by the Defendant was for the period after the completion of the instant lease agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff did not make any substantial unjust enrichment, and thus, it cannot be deducted from the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement.

2. The lease deposit shall be the object after the termination of the lease.

arrow