logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.16 2014가단266082
임대차보증금
Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 2,047,838 and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. On February 20, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on February 20, 2010 with respect to the real estate listed in the list of real estate annexed to the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) 2ndroom 3 (hereinafter “the instant studio”) with the second floor for the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, and from February 22, 2010 to February 22, 2011, and moved into the instant studio on February 24, 2010 after paying the lease deposit.

B. The above lease agreement terminated on May 8, 2014, which had been implicitly renewed on the expiration date.

C. As the Plaintiff did not refund KRW 7 million out of the deposit for lease from the Defendant, the Plaintiff filed an application for a decision of acceptance with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Kao3399 for the order of lease registration of housing, and the registration of the lease of housing was completed on June 27, 2014 as to the instant building.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) sought payment of KRW 7,00,000 remaining lease deposit, and KRW 136,90,000 for lease registration expenses. 2) The Defendant returned KRW 47,550 from the remaining lease deposit on November 2014, KRW 447,530 on July 9, 2015, and the Plaintiff returned public charges (water mine heat heat heat) 4,662,00, KRW 750,00 for the cost of providing Internet services (monthly 15,000 x 50 months), KRW 10,00 for septic tanks (monthly 2,00,000, KRW 532,4666, KRW 10,00 for the delayed damages for lease, KRW 10,00 for the replacement of the repair deposit, KRW 750,00 for the purpose of replacing the repair deposit, KRW 70,700,00 for the purpose of replacing the repair deposit.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 5, it is recognized that the plaintiff completed the registration of housing lease in relation to the building of this case with the cost of KRW 136,900, while the plaintiff did not receive a refund of KRW 7 million out of the deposit amount.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff.

arrow