logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.08.09 2016가단2760
임대차보증금반환
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 49,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 6, 2013, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease”) KRW 201 (2,00,000 as lease deposit, and paid KRW 52,00,00,00 from April 20, 2013 to April 20, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease contract”), and paid KRW 52,00,000,000 as lease deposit to C, and subsequently moved into the instant real estate on April 22, 2013.

B. The Defendant purchased the instant real estate from C on June 11, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on August 26, 2014.

C. On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the content-certified mail stating that he/she had no intent to renew the instant lease agreement.

Since then, the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to E, and on March 22, 2016, E completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate on April 17, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, since the instant lease contract was terminated on April 20, 2015 due to the expiration of the period of validity, the Defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff as a lessor at the time of the termination of the instant lease contract, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 3,00,000 out of the lease deposit amount of KRW 52,00,000 under the instant lease contract from the Defendant, so the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the lease deposit amount of KRW 49,00,000 (=52,00,000 - KRW 3,000,000) under the instant lease contract.

B. On April 17, 2015, the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred to E on the gist of the Defendant’s argument, and the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit against the Plaintiff was succeeded to E. The Plaintiff.

arrow