(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.03.31 2016가단502321

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) 광주지방법원 2017.03.31 2016가단502321

임대차보증금반환청구

Text

1. At the same time, the defendant delivered heading 101 from the plaintiff in Gwangju Dong-gu C and D, and at the same time, 108,604.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From May 1987, the Plaintiff commenced the precious metal sales business in the name of “F” by leasing No. 101 located in Gwangju Dong-gu C and D (hereinafter “instant building”) from E (the mother of the Defendant) as co-owner of the instant building.

B. On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the instant building between the co-owner of the instant building and the Defendant, who is the manager of the instant building, with respect to the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the following content:

(A) Display of store under Article 1 of the lease contract: The lease period under Article 2 of the building of this case: from March 5, 2013 to March 4, 2014 (one year): Article 3: 145,000,000 won monthly rent: the lessee shall pay the Defendant the monthly rent of KRW 1,70,000 on the fourth day of each month.

Article 5. Types of Business: If the lessee of Article 12 of the precious metal sales business fails to pay the rent monthly for not less than 2 months, the lessor may terminate the contract.

Where a lessee fails to pay the rent, he/she shall pay the overdue interest of 24% per annum for the rent in arrears every month.

In case where other co-inheritors raise an objection against the terms of contract of deposit under Article 3, the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the lessor.

In the event that a rent is paid to a lessor and other co-inheritors, it is not recognized as a rent.

A lessor on March 15, 2013: the Plaintiff

C. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 145,00,000 as the lease deposit under the existing lease agreement, and the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant building in accordance with the instant lease agreement.

Since the term of the instant lease agreement expires on March 3, 2014, the Defendant transferred the instant building to the Plaintiff by March 4, 2014, which is the date of termination of the lease agreement.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.06.22 2016가단69290

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.28 2016가단5168705

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.26 2017나7872

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.06 2016가단50038

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.29 2017가단60728