logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.05.21 2019나208633
임대차보증금
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the plaintiff and the defendant in this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the argument added by the plaintiff and the defendant in this court, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In a case where the lessee is unable to use the leased object at all due to the lessor’s failure to perform his/her duty to allow the lessor to use and benefit from the leased object, the lessee may refuse to pay the leased object in full.

The Defendant did not transfer the instant land to the Plaintiff until the conclusion and termination of the instant lease agreement, and did not let the Plaintiff use and benefit therefrom.

In other words, since the Defendant failed to perform his duty to allow the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the instant land, the Plaintiff could not use the instant land at all, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 24,00,000 for one-year rent that was paid in advance by the Plaintiff.

B) The Defendant made a false statement that he would allow the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the instant land within one year, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 24,000,000 to the Defendant for a year. Since such act constitutes a tort, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 24,00,000, or the instant lease agreement constitutes an expression of intent by fraud or mistake, and is revoked by serving a copy of the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of October 29, 2018, the Defendant is liable to return the said KRW 24,00,000 to the Plaintiff. 2) The fact that the Plaintiff did not actually possess and use the instant land after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement after the conclusion of the judgment on the claim for refund of rent due to nonperformance of the duty to benefit and benefit.

However, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, Eul evidence Nos. 8 and 9 (including each serial number);

arrow