logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.12.09 2016가단21369
임대차보증금
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) 1,920,000 won;

B. The delivery of real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff is limited.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the lease deposit amount of KRW 60 million, and the term of lease from August 30, 2012 to August 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant pursuant to the instant lease agreement, and occupied the instant apartment.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant renewed the instant lease agreement on August 30, 2014.

C. On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract will not be renewed any longer.

From September 2012 to September 2016, the Plaintiff paid the total amount of KRW 1960,000,000 for the long-term repair appropriations for the instant apartment from around September 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on August 30, 2016, and thus, the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff the deposit KRW 60 million.

In addition, since the obligation to pay the long-term repair appropriations exists on the owner, the defendant should pay 1,920,000 won to the plaintiff out of the total of 1,960,000 won paid by the plaintiff on behalf of

Furthermore, the Plaintiff is entitled to pay 60 million won and 1920,000 won for the fixed repair reserve at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the apartment of this case to the day of full payment.

However, in order to claim for the payment of future damages for delay, the claim needs to be recognized in advance, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and this part of the claim is not appropriate without any need to further examine the remainder.

B. The plaintiff returned the lease deposit to the defendant.

arrow