logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.08 2019가단5029009
보증금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,750,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 1, 2019 to November 8, 2019.

Reasons

1. On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) each of the leased (hereinafter referred to as “the lease in this case”) with the period from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2019, the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,00,000, the lease deposit amount of KRW 1,936,000 (including value-added tax), and the management and maintenance expenses of KRW 814,000 (including value-added tax) from the Defendant on September 28, 2017.

At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the special terms and conditions under Article 22 of the contract, and set forth in paragraph (2) that “The rent under Article 4 shall be postponed for three months from the date the contract commences, and the cost of management and maintenance under Article 5 shall be paid from the date the contract commences.”

The Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant on the date of the instant lease agreement, and received delivery of the instant building from the Defendant around that time.

On October 25, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “The instant lease is terminated even during the period of the instant lease, and the instant lease is terminated on November 25, 2018, after one month, and thus, the deposit is changed.” The notification reached the Defendant around that time.

After that, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant on November 7, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Article 22(3) of the instant lease agreement provides that if the Plaintiff, who is a lessee, notifies the lessor of the termination of the lease, the right to terminate the instant lease agreement may be terminated instead of paying a penalty for the difference of three months, which was previously postponed.

On October 25, 2018, the Plaintiff terminated the contract to the Defendant pursuant to the above provision.

arrow