(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.19 2015가단30357 (1)

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 2016.07.19 2015가단30357 (1)

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 60 million to the Plaintiffs; and (b) 5% per annum from July 1, 2016 to July 19, 2016; and (c).

Reasons

1. Part of the claim for return of the lease deposit on grounds of termination upon agreement

A. On June 19, 2014, the claimed Plaintiffs entered into a sublease contract with the Defendant for the lease deposit of 10 million won, monthly rent of 200 million won, and the lease term of 200,000 won from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016. At that time, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit and received the delivery of the instant store, and operated the car page with the name of “E”.

However, around November 2014, the Plaintiffs agreed to terminate the instant sub-lease contract instead of the Defendant’s transfer of all the interiors, etc. established in the instant store between the Defendant and the Defendant, and re-delivery the instant store to the Defendant, but the Defendant agreed to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiffs.

However, since the defendant has not yet refunded the lease deposit, it is obligated to return it.

B. Although there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant entered into a sub-lease contract by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million per month, the rent of KRW 2 million per month, and the lease term from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016. At that time, the Plaintiffs paid the above lease deposit and received the delivery of the instant store, and the fact that the Plaintiffs returned the instant store to the Defendant around November 2014.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the parties agreed to return the lease deposit without delay when they received the return of the instant store from the Plaintiffs and the Defendant solely based on the video as set forth in the evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

2. The portion of the claim for the return of the deposit for lease on the grounds of the expiration of the lease term.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.07 2019나20206

-서울북부지방법원 2015.07.16 2015가단615

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.01.16 2016가단217040

-부산지방법원 2018.01.25 2017나4819

-서울북부지방법원 2016.09.20 2016가단114467