(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.18 2018가단534446

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) 수원지방법원 2019.04.18 2018가단534446

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 430,646 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 25, 2018 to April 18, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 9, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 2 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000,000, and the term of lease from September 10, 2017 to September 9, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff occupied and used the instant building by receiving a lease deposit from the Defendant after paying the lease deposit to the Defendant pursuant to the instant lease agreement.

B. However, on January 20, 2018 during the lease term of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff went to a director to the building located in Suwon-gu E in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, without correcting the entrance door of the instant building.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) had several defects as follows (hereinafter “instant defects”) on the instant building leased by the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff demanded repair on several occasions, the Defendant did not comply with the demand of the Defendant. Ultimately, the Plaintiff could not use the instant building in a normal manner and make profits therefrom.

(1) A person who gets out of trouble or water shall not properly get out of his/her water and smelled with him/her.

(2) The rain was milched with the window on the surface of the sloping and gas sirens.

(3) Tap water could not be used in winter.

(4) All boilers, air conditioners, and laundry machines were installed.

(5) Due to the lurble problem, the lurble Gu affairs have flown into the lurble and lower parts.

(2) On January 20, 2018, the Plaintiff, who was unable to normally use and benefit from the instant building, terminated the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation, and the Plaintiff went to another place on the same day.

(3) As long as the instant lease contract is terminated, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the lease deposit.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2019.04.25 2018가단23147

-창원지방법원 2020.09.10 2019나60315

-인천지방법원 2020.10.21 2018가단26023

-인천지방법원 2018.07.12 2017가단255510

-대전지방법원 2020.07.15 2018가단23145