logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.06.22 2015나26193
임대차보증금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. All costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the reasons stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The Plaintiff, which is the cause of the claim, is the transferee of the lease or the claim for the lease deposit of this case. The lease of this case terminated on May 18, 2012 with the expiration date, and the subsequent lease was concluded in its own name and thus is effective to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million after deducting the overdue rent of KRW 17 million from the deposit for lease.

Even if there is no obligation to return the security deposit to the Defendants, D committed an illegal act committed in its own name with the effect that the subsequent lease was deducted from the security deposit to be received by the Plaintiff, and the Defendants participated in the method of soliciting it or accepting the proposal. Accordingly, the Defendants are liable to compensate for damages equivalent to KRW 33 million suffered by the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in light of the aforementioned facts and evidence Nos. 8 and 9, witness D and F’s testimony of the first instance court, the following facts and circumstances, etc., the legal act of subsequent lease becomes effective to the Plaintiff. As seen earlier, since the deposit amount was deducted from overdue rent according to the order agreed in the subsequent lease, there is no remaining security deposit.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants remain to return to the Plaintiff is without merit, since the validity of the subsequent lease contract does not affect the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff and D agree to contribute to KRW 50 million for the lease of this case and distribute D’s operating pension business in the building of this case for profit-making purposes.

arrow