logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.06.28 2017가단318227
임대차보증금
Text

1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B: (a) KRW 574,660 against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from April 28, 2018 to June 28, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D purchased the real estate listed in the [Attachment 1] List on June 18, 2010 (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

B. The Defendants, as married couple, purchased the instant building from D on June 30, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer by one-half shares.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a premium agreement with Plaintiff D, and paid KRW 190 million for the premium. On April 27, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Plaintiff D to lease the first floor and the underground floor of the instant building up to April 26, 2018, and paid KRW 150 million for the lease deposit, and operated food materials marina.

D around June 2014, Defendant B sold the instant building to the Defendants. Since then, Defendant B demanded the Plaintiff to write the instant contract again, which contained the same contents as that of the previous contract. The Plaintiff prepared a contract as required by Defendant B.

From around the summer in 2015, water leakage occurred on the first floor and the underground floor of the instant building, and pollution occurred on the first floor of the underground, such as sewage, reflow, etc.

The plaintiff requested repair to the defendant B, but the defendants were unrepaired, and the plaintiff was unable to properly perform funeral services due to water leakage and flood repeated.

On May 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the lease agreement with the Defendants by exempting the Defendants from monthly rent.

The Defendants are also obligated to manage or repair the leased object in a state suitable for use in accordance with the leased purpose as a lessor, and also the warranty against defects.

On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract on the grounds of the Defendants’ breach of duty or defects in leased objects.

The Defendants jointly and severally deprived the Plaintiff of the opportunity to recover the amount of KRW 187,044,050 = KRW 150,000 for lease deposit.

arrow