logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2017.06.09 2016가단35297
임대차보증금
Text

1. Defendant D shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5,000,000.

2. Defendant D shall have the Plaintiff KRW 2,000,000, and the Plaintiff A and C.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff B is the mother of Plaintiff A and C, and the Defendants co-ownership one-half shares of each of the buildings on the first floor above F in Jinju-si and the fourth floor above ground in Jinju-si.

B. On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff A leased the underground floor of the above building (hereinafter “instant underground floor”) from Defendant D to Defendant D for use as the church (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”), which was determined to be KRW 5,00,000,000 from the date when the lease deposit was ordered, KRW 24 months from the date when the lease term was ordered, and KRW 24 months from the date when the lease term was not leased (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”), and previously paid the above lease deposit to Defendant D.

C. On August 4, 2015, Plaintiff B, along with Plaintiff A and C, occupied the instant underground floor and operated the church.

From August 2015, Defendant D advertised a new claim for the tenant of the instant underground floor on the Internet site. On January 13, 2016, Defendant D posted the above contents on the Plaintiff’s Internet car page, “G” with the title “content Certification”, which read “Ack-domination”, “Ack-domination”, “Ack-domination”, “Ack-domination”, “Ack-domination”, “Ack-domination”, “G”, “Ack-domination”, “Ack-domination”, “Ack-domination”, “Ack-domination.”

E. On February 1, 2016, Defendant D attached a banner at the entrance of the instant underground floor, stating that “The instant underground floor occupied by the main owner without permission, and the main owner without permission.” The Defendant D affixed a banner at the entrance of the instant underground floor with the content that “it is undergoing legal procedures, such as sending a certificate of content, and thus prohibiting entry without the main owner’s permission.”

F. Defendant D: (a) around February 5, 2016 and around February 13, 2016, on the instant underground floor on two occasions, the Plaintiffs were unable to lock the entrance and prevent the Plaintiffs from leaving the entrance; and (b) the police officers reported to Plaintiff B 112 were dispatched.

arrow