(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.05.24 2016가단11605

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.05.24 2016가단11605

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver underground rooms from the plaintiff's real estate stated in the separate sheet to the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, 30,000.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 28, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the underground floor (hereinafter “instant building”) among the buildings listed in the attached list owned by the Defendant, with respect to the lease deposit amounting to KRW 25 million and the lease term from August 15, 2008 to August 15, 2010 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff paid the above lease deposit by August 15, 2008, and received the instant building. The said lease contract was implicitly renewed, and the Plaintiff transferred the deposit to the Defendant on October 10, 2012 upon the Defendant’s demand for the increase of the lease deposit, and the deposit was increased by KRW 30 million.

C. From May 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant consented to the termination of the said lease agreement around June 2015.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the termination of agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around June 2015, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million.

B. The defendant's simultaneous performance defense against the simultaneous performance defense that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim for the return of lease deposit before the delivery of the building of this case from the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's possession of the building of this case has no dispute between the parties since the termination of the lease contract of this case. The plaintiff is obligated to order the building of this case to the defendant, and the plaintiff's duty to surrender the name of the building of this case and the duty to return the lease deposit of this case is also related to the simultaneous performance.

As such, the defendant's simultaneous performance defense is justified.

C. Accordingly, according to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant's delivery of the building of this case from the plaintiff at the same time.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.02.16 2015가합5666

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.03.05 2014가단211925

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.19 2016가단5036976

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.18 2015가단161467

-의정부지방법원 2015.07.07 2015가단11113