(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.05 2016나304063

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) 대구지방법원 2016.10.05 2016나304063

장기수선충당금반환

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a principal suit for the return of the long-term repair appropriations, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim for the return of the long-term repair appropriations, and the part of the principal suit was accepted and the counterclaim was fully accepted, and it is evident that only the Defendant filed an appeal.

Therefore, it is judged that only the principal claim is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 809 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000, and by September 2, 2007 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Plaintiff and the Defendant stated as the special terms of the instant lease agreement that “at the present time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant will restore the facilities and equipment to their original state upon the modification, damage, or loss of them.”

B. Since then, the instant lease agreement was renewed several times until November 29, 2014, and until that time, the sum of long-term repair appropriations paid by the Plaintiff to the management office of the instant apartment is KRW 395,566.

C. On November 29, 2014, the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant.

On the other hand, while the plaintiff leased and used the apartment of this case, he destroyed part of the glass of the front entrance, and the repair cost is KRW 40,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion long-term repair appropriations was paid by the Plaintiff during the lease period even though the Defendant, the owner of the apartment of this case, and thus, the Defendant should return the long-term repair appropriations paid by the Plaintiff, 395,566 won, and its delay damages. 2) The Defendant’s assertion was destroyed while using the apartment of this case during the lease period

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.04.01 2015나10071

-부산지방법원 2015.04.15 2014가합14668

-울산지방법원 2017.08.30 2017나20074

-대전지방법원 2020.01.17 2019나105755

-광주지방법원 2015.10.30 2015나51902