logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.19 2016나25279
보증금 반환
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) leased, from the Defendants on August 26, 2014, the fixed lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 980,000 (excluding value-added tax); (b) management expenses (excluding value-added tax); and (c) from August 26, 2014 to November 12, 2015, the lease period of KRW 695,250 (excluding value-added tax).

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant contract”). (b)

The Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to terminate the instant contract on September 2015.

The Plaintiff removed from the instant building on October 8, 2015, and returned the key of the instant building to the management office around October 29, 2015, and notified the Defendants thereof.

C. On December 24, 2015, the Defendants returned from KRW 20,00,00 to the Plaintiff KRW 1,895,168 of the rent and management expenses for October 2015, and KRW 15,707,613 of the remainder after deducting KRW 743,219 of the rent and management expenses until the expiration of the lease term from the rent and management expenses for the rent and management expenses for the portion of November 2015, and KRW 1,654,613 of the construction expenses for the construction of the floor and the wall surface.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-6, Gap evidence 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' arguments and the judgment on them

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that the floor and the wall of the building of this case were not damaged due to the plaintiff's fault, but the defendants arbitrarily deducted the construction cost of the floor and the wall of the building of this case from the lease deposit, and sought payment of the amount stated in the claim.

The defendants asserted that the plaintiff should bear the construction cost of the floor and the wall surface of the building of this case, since the plaintiff damaged the floor and the wall surface of the building of this case due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiff while the plaintiff occupied and used the building of this case.

B. (1) Determination is made even if the lessee is obliged to restore the object to its original state upon termination of the lease agreement on the deduction of construction cost.

arrow