(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.04.24 2019가단231391

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) 서울남부지방법원 2020.04.24 2019가단231391

임대차보증금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim was made on August 21, 2008 by the Plaintiff on August 21, 2008, that was D Forest at the time of the Seoul Yangcheon-gu Seoul Forest Court, and the E land stated in the cause of the claim was already combined into D Forest in 2003.

A part of the deposit was leased at KRW 10 million and KRW 1.2 million per month, and the fact that the rent was increased by KRW 1.4 million per month from January 2016 is no dispute between the parties or that the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 can be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of pleadings. Thus, upon the plaintiff's request, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 26.4 million after deducting the deposit amount from the total rent of KRW 36.4 million for 26 months from August 2016 to September 2018, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7 as to the defendant's defense, the above forest land is owned by five persons, such as F, etc. from before the lease of the plaintiff and the defendant, and F, around July 19, 2016, demanded delivery of forest land to the defendant, and the defendant promised to pay the fee, thereby paying the fee to F, from August 2016.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s obligation under a lease agreement to allow the Defendant to use and benefit from part of the said forest was impossible on July 19, 2016, and the Defendant may refuse to pay the rent thereafter on the ground of the termination of the lease due to nonperformance.

Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is with merit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da38325, Sept. 24, 2009).

The plaintiff asserts that he leased part of the forest as above from F on March 25, 2000. However, Gap evidence No. 8 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to prove the fact of lease, and the above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 9. 24. 선고 2008다38325 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 논산지원 2017.04.27 2016가단3914

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.21 2017가단23534

-대전지방법원 2017.04.20 2016가단35663

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.23 2016가단5255722

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.08.17 2016가단102104