logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.13 2018나46492
임차보증금반환청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal under paragraph (2) below, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A portion used for adding or cutting;

(a) The second and fifteen pages 14 and 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be “2012.”

(b)No. 6 of the first instance judgment “No. 1 and No. 2” shall be added to “No. 1 and No. 2” following the third instance judgment.

(c) in Part 4 of the first instance judgment, Part 7 “only to C” shall be read as “Partial C.”

After the first instance court’s decision No. 4, 12, “There is no reason to view otherwise,” the following: (7) The Plaintiff added “from August 14, 2015, which was the date of termination of the instant lease agreement, at least two years, and from May 23, 2016, when the Defendant returned the full amount of the lease deposit to C, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the lease deposit to the Defendant during the period from May 23, 2017, when one year and six months passed since the Defendant returned the full amount of the lease deposit to C; and (5) the Plaintiff added “in light of the foregoing behavior,” “.”

E. On March 29, 2012, the first instance court’s 4 pages 13 and 14 added the phrase “it is reasonable to see that the instant claim is an indivisible claim” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da95861, Mar. 29, 2012).

F. On Chapter 4, 17, and 20 of the judgment of the first instance court (it seems that the instant lease agreement existed at the time of implied renewal, and there may be room to view that the claim to return the deposit was extinguished due to the conversion of the instant lease deposit into a new lease deposit at the time of concluding a new lease agreement).

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow