(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.13 2015나1906

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.13 2015나1906

임대차보증금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 4, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 75 million to the Defendant for the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and KRW 75 million to the Defendant, on which the lease deposit was to be leased KRW 42.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant house”) among the leased housing in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant housing”), from among the leased housing in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, as the lease deposit amount of KRW 75 million, from May 31, 2012 to 24 months (hereinafter “instant lease”).

B. On May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff completed a move-in report on the instant house, and thereafter thereafter, the Plaintiff was residing in the instant house, and requested the Defendant to return the lease deposit by notifying the expiration of the lease term and the Defendant that there was no intent to renew the contract. However, the Defendant rejected the request.

C. On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff received the order of lease registration (this court 2014Kadan1345) from the court, and completed the registration of the housing lease on the instant housing on June 26, 2014, and completed the move-in report on July 9, 2014, and transferred the instant housing to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above recognition of the duty to refund the lease deposit, the lease contract of this case terminated at the expiration of the term, barring special circumstances, the Defendant, a lessor, is obligated to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 75 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's defense (1) asserts to the purport that since the plaintiff paid KRW 2.5 million to the plaintiff on the wind of violating the obligation to restore the real estate of this case to its original state, the above amount should be deducted from the lease deposit to be returned.

The plaintiff is obligated to restore to his/her original state his/her small market repair cost of 1.60,00 won, so the defendant's above assertion is justified to the extent above.

However, the defendant's assertion 2.5 million won excludes the above 1.6 million won.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.02.11 2014가단58713

-창원지방법원 2016.11.25 2016가단101894

-수원지방법원 2015.06.03 2014나36754

-인천지방법원 2015.06.11 2014가단79241

-의정부지방법원 2014.12.23 2014가단31790