(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.06.21 2018나2002248

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) 서울고등법원 2018.06.21 2018나2002248

보증금반환

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 20, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract with the Defendants to lease the instant apartment owned by the Defendants (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the lease deposit amount of KRW 370,000,000 (contract amount of KRW 37,000,000, the remainder of KRW 333,000,000) and from August 3, 2015 to August 3, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). On June 20, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants each of the remainder of KRW 33,00,000,000 as above, on August 3, 2015.

B. On May 2017, the Plaintiff delivered to the Defendants the intent that the Defendants did not intend to renew the contract by wire, and the said declaration of intent reached the Defendants around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 6-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts found in the judgment on the principal portion of the lease deposit, the instant lease agreement expired on August 3, 2017, and thus, the Defendants are obliged to pay KRW 370,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) The parties' assertion on the damages for delay 1) The plaintiff transferred most of the plaintiff's animals in the apartment of this case before the expiration of the lease contract of this case to the defendants and notified the defendants of the payment of the lease deposit after the transfer of the plaintiff's animals in this case to the defendants before the expiration of the lease contract of this case constitutes the provision of the plaintiff's duty of delivery. The defendants jointly asserted that they are liable to pay damages for delay of the lease deposit of this case to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendants did not deliver the apartment of this case to the defendants because they did not inform the defendants of the identification number of the apartment entrance of this case. 2) Since the tenant's duty of delivery of the leased object of this case and the duty of repayment of the lessor's deposit is related to the simultaneous performance of the lease.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.10.08 2020가합14218

-부산지방법원 2020.05.20 2019가합47359

-대전지방법원서산지원 2020.11.24 2020가단54246

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.10.23 2019가단9637

-서울북부지방법원 2018.06.21 2017가합23367