(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.12.12 2017가단326976

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 2017.12.12 2017가단326976

임대차보증금

Text

1. As to KRW 122,540,580 among the Plaintiff and KRW 122,00,000 among them, the Defendant shall start from August 15, 2017 to December 12, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the obligatory deposit between the Defendant and the Defendant for the lease on a deposit basis of KRW 122,00,000,000 on a deposit basis, May 18, 2015, and 24 months from the date of delivery, and paid all the deposit money to the Defendant around that time.

B. On March 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the absence of intention to renew the above lease contract, which was before the expiry of the term of existence.

C. The Plaintiff paid 540,580 won for the long-term repair appropriations during the period from May 2015 to July 2017, which the Defendant, the owner of the said apartment, should bear.

On August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff delivered the above apartment to the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 7, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the above obligatory lease contract has expired on July 17, 2017, the defendant has an obligation to pay to the plaintiff 122,540,580 won (i.e., 122,00,000 won for the long-term repair appropriations of KRW 540,580 for the long-term repair deposit of KRW 122,00,000 for the long-term repair deposit of KRW 122,580 for the lease deposit of KRW 122,00,000 from August 15, 2017 following the delivery date to December 12, 2017, which is the date this decision is rendered that it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the scope of the obligation to perform, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment until the date of full payment, 5% per annum from the next day to the date of the application for damages.

The Plaintiff seek damages for delay from the day following the service of the original copy of the instant payment order.

However, the lessor's obligation to return the lease deposit is related to the lessee's obligation to return the leased object simultaneously.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2017.04.13 2016나2253

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.07.17 2018가단31770

-부산지방법원 2018.02.06 2017가단334885

-제주지방법원 2019.10.15 2019가단53480

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.01.10 2017가단211315