logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.26 2014가단77855
임대차보증금반환
Text

1. The counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is recorded in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. The defendant may, ex officio, file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal lawsuit is pending, not later than the closure of pleadings, only where it does not substantially delay the litigation procedures;

(Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, in this case, since the fact that the defendant submitted the counterclaim of this case on November 7, 2014, which was after the closure of the pleadings of this case, is apparent in the record, the defendant failed to meet the requirements for the counterclaim of this case.

Therefore, the counterclaim of this case is unlawful.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. (1) On November 21, 201, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant gas station”) from the Defendant as of November 21, 201, with a deposit of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and the period from November 30, 201 to November 30, 201.

(2) On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an additional lease agreement with the main content of raising a deposit of KRW 100,000,000,000. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff by October 31, 2012.

(3) On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of contents, the main purpose of which is to refund the lease deposit upon the termination of the lease term on two occasions on November 4, 2013, and reached the Defendant around that time.

(4) On November 29, 2013, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000,000 among the lease deposit, and KRW 40,000,000 in total, on March 27, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on November 30, 2013. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay 60,000,000 won not yet paid out of the deposit, barring any special circumstances, to the Plaintiff.

C. The defendant's defense (1) The defendant's defense to deduct the cost of defect repair in this case is the gas station in this case.

arrow