(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.09.04 2019가합43869

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) 부산지방법원 2019.09.04 2019가합43869

임대차보증금

Text

1. The Defendants jointly share with the Plaintiff’s delivery of the buildings listed in the separate sheet, and 320,000.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In light of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff, on February 10, 2017, leased from the Defendants the instant building at KRW 320 million from March 31, 2017 to March 30, 2019, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 320 million, and the Plaintiff, upon actual payment of KRW 50 million, decided to substitute the Defendants’ succession to the obligation to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, who was the former owner and the lessor, with the lapse of the said lease period. The Plaintiff is the person whose delivery obligation of the instant building and the obligation to return the lease deposit of KRW 270 million from March 31, 2017 to March 30, 2019.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 320,000,000 to the Plaintiff with the delivery of the instant building from the Plaintiff at the same time.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought damages for delay from the following day after the expiration of the above lease contract with respect to KRW 50 million among the above lease deposit against the Defendants.

On the other hand, in cases where both parties’ obligations are jointly performed in bilateral contract, even if one of the parties’ obligations becomes due, the performance of the other party’s obligation is not liable until the other party’s obligation is performed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43370, Oct. 25, 2002). Unless there is any evidence supporting that the Plaintiff performed the obligation to deliver the building of this case, which is simultaneously performed with the obligation to pay lease deposit, to the Defendants, the Defendants are not liable for the delay of performance by themselves as the existence of the right to refuse performance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part based on the defendants' delay of performance is without merit.

2. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is acknowledged.

참조판례

-대법원 2002. 10. 25. 선고 2002다43370 판결

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2020.05.29 2019가단20692

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.10.10 2018가합410342

-의정부지방법원 2020.06.18 2019가단140972

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.08.14 2019가단14885

-인천지방법원 2019.09.27 2019가단234135