logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 홍성지원 2018.10.24 2018가단350
임대차보증금
Text

1. The Defendants’ respective 32.5 million won and each of the said money to the Plaintiff annually from March 4, 2018 to October 24, 2018.

Reasons

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and there is no counter-proof evidence.

On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff leased 305 units of the E Condominium (hereinafter “instant apartment”) among the aggregate buildings located in Boan-si, Boan-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”) at KRW 65 million (no monthly rent) and the period from October 18, 2013 to October 17, 2015. The Plaintiff paid the deposit to D around that time.

B. The Defendants purchased the instant apartment on December 8, 2016 and completed the registration of transfer of a share (1/2 shares, respectively) (1/2).

C. On November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the fact that “The Plaintiff urged the return of the deposit several times before and after the termination of the lease, but it was not yet paid, so that it would be possible to return the deposit.” The notice reached the Defendants on December 4, 2017.

From December 6, 2017, the Plaintiff moved to a different place from March 4, 2017, and delivered the instant apartment to the Defendants.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not want to renew the lease contract orally, and requested the return of the lease deposit. On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred the instant apartment to the Defendants, while moving into a director.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the deposit to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants succeeded to the lessor’s status by acquiring ownership of the instant apartment, and thereafter, the said lease agreement was explicitly renewed, and the said notification was lawfully terminated on March 4, 2018, when three months were to have passed from December 4, 2017, when the Plaintiff’s notice was delivered to the Defendants.

There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the rejection of renewal one month prior to October 17, 2017, the expiration date of the contract term.

3. Where a co-owner jointly leases a co-owned building, the obligation to return the deposit shall be fulfilled;

arrow