logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.10.07 2015나4355
보증채무금
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall provide each real estate listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of the commercial real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 301, 302, and 303 (hereinafter “instant 301 through 303”) stated in the separate sheet No. 1 list.

B. On December 21, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant Nos. 301 KRW 15 million, monthly rent of KRW 900,000,000, KRW 302, and KRW 15,000,000, KRW 900,000, and monthly rent of KRW 303,000,000, and the lease period from December 21, 2010 to December 20, 2013 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant lease agreement”).

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total amount of KRW 30 million, and operated a private teaching institute with the trade name “C” upon delivery of the instant real estate.

On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract will not be renewed upon the termination of the termination.

E. On December 5, 2013, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant returned KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff in advance, out of KRW 30 million.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim for the return of the lease deposit, the lease contract of this case was terminated on December 20, 2013, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining lease deposit KRW 10 million to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. 2) The defendant asserted that the defendant did not transfer the real estate of this case to its original state and did not deliver it to the plaintiff. The defendant's obligation to return the deposit of this case to the original state. Since the defendant's obligation to deliver the real estate of this case is a simultaneous performance relationship with the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the real estate of this case, the plaintiff cannot pay the deposit until the delivery obligation of this case is performed, and the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff delivered the real estate of this case to the defendant on December 20, 2013

arrow