logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.13 2015나2023497
보증금반환
Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this Court’s determination are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff who actually used the instant leased object as the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Plaintiff and MEM, and Embrops left all of the instant leased object from the end of September 2013, and H used the instant leased object from the beginning of November 2013. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and H agreed that H, a new lessee, from the beginning of November 22, 2013, shall accept and use the instant leased object as it was used by the Plaintiff, and that it shall substitute for the return and restitution of the leased object (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

(2) In addition, on December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 86,60,000,000 in total, in arrears, to the Defendant. That is, each of the instant lease agreements was terminated on October 2013, when the notice of termination was delivered to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff returned the leased object of this case to the Defendant on November 201, 2013, and all the overdue rent was paid. Accordingly, even if the Defendant was liable to return the total amount of KRW 300,000,000 in total of each lease deposit, only KRW 198,20,000,000, which is a joint lessee (hereinafter “C”).

) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid lease deposit amount of KRW 101,80,000 (=300,000,000 - 198,200,000) and delay damages to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim for the refund of the unpaid lease deposit under each of the instant lease agreements from C. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff may receive the refund of the lease deposit only after ordering the Defendant to do so.

However, the defendant from November 2013.

arrow