(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.14 2016나54091

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.14 2016나54091

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 24, 2006, the Plaintiff, from the Defendant conducting the construction of apartment buildings and the sale of apartment buildings in lots, set the lease term of KRW 168,430,000 between the two years from March 16, 2009, the lease deposit amount of KRW 168,430,000 between the two years from March 16, 2009, and the rent of KRW 400,000 (hereinafter “instant lease”).

B. On May 26, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant, at the Plaintiff’s expense, with the content that the Defendant performs the balcony expansion construction work on the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant balcony expansion contract”), and the said contract contains the following contents.

Construction cost: The contract that is the nature of the contract of Article 1 of the 6,527,00 won is a contract attached to the lease contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the apartment of this case, which is not effective separately from the lease contract of this case.

Article 3. The extension of contract shall be executed by the defendant at the request of the plaintiff, and no change or cancellation shall be made after the contract for the extension of balcony is concluded, and the payment paid shall not be demanded to be refunded.

Article 5 (hereinafter referred to as "the construction cost of this case") After moving into the purchase right (hereinafter referred to as "the construction cost of this case") and the defendant shall return to the plaintiff the amount calculated by deducting the depreciation costs (the lifespan shall be equal depreciation for ten years) during the period of residence from the amount received as the extension construction cost of balcony.

Provided, That where a defect is severe, the refund shall be governed by the decision of the defendant, and the plaintiff shall not raise any objection.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 6,527,00 to the Defendant for expenses incurred in expanding balcony construction. The Defendant completed the balcony expansion construction, and the Plaintiff resided in the instant apartment from March 16, 2009 to October 20, 2014.

On September 20, 2014, the Plaintiff leased and used the apartment of this case from the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2018. 07. 05. 선고 2017구합81526 판결

-광주지방법원 2018.02.08 2017구합10777

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.10 2017가단5101044

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.08.14 2019가합104245

-광주지방법원 2019.02.14 2017구합11978