logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.11.15 2018가단19974
임대차보증금
Text

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 40,366,160 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related expenses from August 17, 2018 to November 15, 2019.

Reasons

The establishment and termination of a lease was completed from around 2011 (attached Form 2 and 3 from around 2015) that the Plaintiff leased and used each of the buildings of this case from the Defendant. However, on April 20, 2017, the lease was renewed again by setting the deposit amount of KRW 32,00,000,000, rent of KRW 7,040,000, and period of April 20, 2018.

(A) The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach an agreement on renewal at least one month prior to the expiration of the term of the lease. Therefore, the instant lease is deemed to have been renewed under the same conditions as the former lease at the expiration of the term.

(Article 10(4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. In this case, the Plaintiff, who is a lessee, may notify the Defendant of the termination of the contract at any time, and the termination of the contract shall take effect three months after the date the Defendant is notified

As a copy of the instant complaint was served on August 16, 2018 on the Defendant, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the contract. As such, the instant lease contract was terminated on November 16, 2018.

With respect to the claim of the principal claim, the plaintiff asserted unjust enrichment was in a fluent situation where the plaintiff would have to bear monetary damage by abandoning the premium, etc. unless the lease contract of this case is renewed.

The defendant was aware of the plaintiff's poor circumstances and obtained unjust enrichment by taking advantage of it as the difference in the amount higher than the surrounding market price at that time.

Since this is a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness, the defendant is obligated to return the difference exceeding an appropriate amount.

Judgment

Results of appraisal of the period during which the plaintiff asserts unfair legal acts, and deposits and rents under the lease contract of this case are as follows.

As a result of the appraisal of the period, the rent deposit of the instant lease deposit from August 31, 2015 to April 19, 2016: KRW 4,788,815 to KRW 30,00,000; KRW 6,470,000 to KRW 4,836,650 to KRW 30,00.

arrow