(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.05.23 2017가단114040

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) 창원지방법원 2018.05.23 2017가단114040

임대차보증금

Text

1. The Defendant’s annual period from April 26, 2018 to May 23, 2018, as to KRW 104,192,03 and KRW 102,278,338 among the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 27, 2013, the Plaintiff leased a deposit of KRW 130 million, and the period from June 11, 2013 to June 11, 2015, the deposit of KRW 10 million was additionally paid around July 2015.

B. On May 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she had no intent to renew the lease agreement, and on June 13, 2017, delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant.

C. On June 20, 2017, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 15 million, KRW 7.5 million on July 5, 2017, KRW 18 million on August 10, 2017, KRW 6 million on October 30, 2017, and KRW 40,3 million on November 18, 2017.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the apartment of this case terminated on June 11, 2017, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder remaining after payment of the deposit amounting to KRW 140,000,000, and damages for delay after June 13, 2017, which is the delivery date.

The defendant asserts that the repair cost of the bathing tank damaged by the plaintiff should be deducted from the deposit, and the plaintiff also acknowledges the deduction of 300,000 won for the bathing tank repair cost.

However, in addition, the Plaintiff violated the duty of care to the extent required of ordinary lessee in relation to the occupancy and use of the apartment of this case.

With respect to the fact that the repair cost exceeds the above 300,000 won, each statement of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence, the defendant's defense of mutual aid is justified only within the scope of 300,000 won of the bathing allowance.

The result of the Defendant’s appropriation of KRW 40,30,000 and KRW 300,000 for bathing repair expenses paid to the Plaintiff up to now to the principal balance of the deposit and damages for delay is as shown in

300,000 won of the bathing allowance shall be paid on the date of the closing of argument.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.06.23 2015나16187

-서울동부지방법원 2013.03.28 2012고단1346

-제주지방법원 2017.04.21 2016가단54468

-서울북부지방법원 2012.12.27 2012고단2425

-서울남부지방법원 2018.01.10 2017가단233010