logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.12.24. 선고 2020가합37959 판결
보증금반환
Cases

2020 Gohap37959 Return of deposit

Plaintiff

A

Attorney Park Hyun-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

B

Conclusion of Pleadings

December 10, 2020

Imposition of Judgment

December 24, 2020

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 225,00,000 at the same time with the delivery of real estate stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 (including various numbers), or the whole pleadings, the plaintiff, on April 25, 2016, paid KRW 225,00,000, and the lease term from May 26, 2016 to May 25, 2018. The plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with Eul and Eul as the plaintiff, and paid KRW 225,000,000 to the defendant for the lease term of KRW 20,00,000 for each of the following reasons: since the lease agreement was concluded on May 12, 2018 with the defendant who acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case, and the lease agreement was concluded on April 25, 201 to the expiration of the lease agreement of this case, the plaintiff was delivered to the defendant 205,00,000,000 after the expiration of the lease agreement of this case as the expiration of the lease agreement of this case.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s duty to return the lease deposit and the Plaintiff’s duty to deliver the instant real estate, which are the leased object, are concurrently performed. While the Plaintiff did not deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought from the Plaintiff to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 225,00,000 to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 225,00,000 to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant real estate from the

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, the Gimdo judge

Judges Jin-hee

Judges Chief Democratic

Attached Form

A person shall be appointed.

arrow