logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.08.13 2019가단18040
임대차보증금반환
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 140,000,000 won to the plaintiff within the scope of the property inherited from the network D.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 19, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with D to lease the Plaintiff from October 20, 2017 to October 19, 2019 with respect to the building E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by D and Busan, the lease deposit was paid to D around that time.

B. After that, on November 21, 2017, D died without any lineal descendant and the Defendant, who is its mother, succeeded to the sole inheritance. On January 23, 2018, the Defendant was subject to the Busan Family Court’s 2018 D Family Court’s 2005 inheritance limited approval.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Evidence No. 3-1 to 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment that the plaintiff sought payment of the lease deposit against the defendant on the ground that the lease contract term expires, the defendant is subject to an inheritance limited approval judgment, and thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

However, as seen above, the fact that the lease contract of this case terminated due to the expiration of the period and the fact that the defendant was tried to grant an inheritance limited approval is identical to the fact that the contract of this case was inherited by the defendant, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the above lease deposit KRW 140,00,000 to the plaintiff within the scope of the inherited property

(1) The plaintiff's claim for delay damages against the above money is also sought from the next day of the delivery of the complaint of this case, but since there is no proof that the plaintiff delivered the real estate of this case to the defendant, the claim for delay damages is rejected as it is without merit). 3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow