logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.08.08 2017가단219885
보증금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from June 2, 2016 to August 8, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, the Plaintiff paid 70,000,000 won to the Defendant around April 16, 2007, and leased the first floor of the building located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City from the Defendant, the Defendant planned to allow the lessee, including the Plaintiff, to occupy the building to be reconstructed on June 2015, and produced it for several months by promising to allow the lessee, such as the Plaintiff, etc. to occupy the building to be reconstructed on the future. The registration of preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name was completed on January 5, 2016, from the Defendant, from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s director on June 18, 2015, from the leased object to the Plaintiff, the amount of KRW 10,000,000,000, the same year.

7. 15. Directors: (a) each received KRW 10,00,000 for each of them; (b) thereafter, the Plaintiff demanded the return of the lease deposit to the Defendant by expressing that the reconstructed building would not move into the Defendant on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s household, a 3-person household, is narrow in residence; and (c) the Defendant made a verbal promise to return the lease deposit upon completion of the sale of the rebuilding building; (d) however, the Defendant failed to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff even after the completion of the sale of the rebuilding building; and (e) the Plaintiff demanded the return of the lease deposit by sending the content-certified mail to the Defendant on June 2, 2016.

Thus, the defendant is about 50,000,000 won which was not returned to the plaintiff and the promotion of the lawsuit, etc. from June 2, 2016 to August 8, 2017 (the date of the judgment of this case where the defendant is deemed to dispute the scope of the obligation of repayment) as stipulated in the Civil Act, until 5% per annum and 5% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

arrow