(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.10.02 2014가단240361

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) 부산지방법원 2015.10.02 2014가단240361

전세금 등 반환청구

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 30,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

1.The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings.

On May 21, 2010, the Plaintiff leased multi-household housing on the second floor of the Busan Dongdong-gu Dadong-gu 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 800,000, and the period from June 10, 2010 to June 9, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”) B.

At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff: (a) performed rooftop waterproof construction and other renovation and repair works at his own expense under the consent of the Defendant; and (b) did not intend the Defendant to have his right thereto at the time of the termination of the lease; and (c) the Defendant agreed not to cause any trouble to the Plaintiff’s use of and profit from the instant housing by repairing and replacing the lost or damaged parts arising from old facilities, such as water pipes, septic tanks, etc., of the instant housing (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid 30,000,000 won to the Defendant, and performed part of the renovation and repair construction of the instant house from June 10, 2010 to the present house, and had been residing until now.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The instant house was in a situation where it was difficult for the Defendant to reside due to water leakage and mycoin due to the deterioration of the building, flood caused by rainwater inflow, damage therefrom, etc., and thus, the Defendant did not repair the instant lease by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the grounds of the Defendant’s breach of repair obligation. As such, the instant lease contract was terminated by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the grounds of the Defendant’s breach of repair obligation, as well as the return of KRW 30,00,000,000, and the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, and at the same time, the instant lease contract was canceled by serving as a duplicate of the instant complaint. In addition, the instant house

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.04.19 2018나52624

-서울북부지방법원 2020.06.23 2019가단9948

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.09 2013가단5182335

-서울서부지방법원 2019.12.12 2019나33672

-청주지방법원 2016.10.25 2015나4222