logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.13 2020나5685
공제금 등 청구의 소
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to pay shall be revoked and that part shall be revoked.

Reasons

A. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the following is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

[Supplementary part] * 3rd of the first instance judgment, 16th of the 16th sentence, shall be followed as follows.

The lease deposit in preference to the plaintiff is the sum of KRW 197,00,000.

* The ten-party 10th of the first instance judgment and seven-party 7th of the trial shall be followed as follows.

However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the facts acknowledged above and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, in the case of a multi-family house, there are many lessees, and the current status of a multi-family house is not indicated in the real estate registration book. Therefore, in the case of a lease contract for a multi-family house, the risk of not recovering the lease deposit due to a senior lease exists, and such risk seems to have been known to a certain extent. The plaintiff, who entered into a lease contract for a multi-family house in this case, should have made efforts to prevent damage by ascertaining the market price of the multi-family house in this case, senior lease status, the status of the lessor's financial standing, etc., and it seems to have been somewhat neglected. The defendant, a licensed real estate agent, is in the position of mediating the lease contract in this case according to the delegation of both parties, and is not obliged to protect the plaintiff from all risks arising from the lease contract, but it is not easy for the broker to grasp it properly, and it is not easy for the defendant to notify the plaintiff of the present status of the lease in this case.

arrow