logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.07.26 2017가단68297
임대차보증금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 39,572,040 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from October 11, 2017 to March 28, 2018, and the following.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts are recognized as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the evidence Nos. 1 to 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1) On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff between Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, 2009, the Plaintiff owned D708 Dong 2009 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) On October 24, 2013, when the ownership of the instant apartment was transferred to the Defendant and the status of the lessor under the said lease was succeeded to the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to rent KRW 30,000,000 ( KRW 40,000,000) and the term of the lease agreement to rent the instant apartment owned by the Defendant for two years from October 24, 2013 (hereinafter “the lease agreement”) and the term of the lease agreement was extended to the Defendant on October 24, 2013, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant on October 29, 2014 (hereinafter “the lease agreement”).

3) The instant lease was implicitly renewed on October 23, 2015, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on September 26, 2016, and delivered the instant apartment on October 10, 2017. (4) The Plaintiff unpaid KRW 412,040, and urban gas costs KRW 15,920.

B. The judgment of this case was duly terminated on December 26, 2016, which was three months from September 26, 2016 according to the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on September 26, 2016 (Article 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act). Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, sought the claim of this case and the claim of this case where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant, from October 11, 2017 following the delivery date of the apartment of this case, to dispute on the scope of its duty to perform, as to the amount of unpaid management expenses of KRW 412,00,000, urban gas expenses of KRW 15,920, and the remainder after deducting the unpaid management expenses of KRW 39,572,040.

arrow