logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.09.19 2018가단13055
임차보증금반환
Text

1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45,00,000 and the interest rate thereon from June 19, 2018 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to KRW 405,00,000, and the lease deposit period from January 19, 2013 to March 17, 2015, with respect to the building in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant multi-family house”) owned by D, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant multi-family house”).

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit to D and completed the move-in report, and began to reside in the instant house.

C. On November 15, 2013, the Defendants concluded a sales contract for the instant multi-family house with D (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 31, 2013 with respect to each of the instant multi-family houses on the grounds of the said sale.

From March 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that he would terminate the instant lease agreement, and thereafter requested the return of the lease deposit.

In addition, on January 17, 2018, the Plaintiff registered the right of lease in the instant multi-family house as the Suwon District Court 2017Kao220, and thereafter delivered the instant house to the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendants are obligated to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the lease contract of this case is terminated. Thus, the defendants are jointly lessors and are jointly liable to pay the lease deposit and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendants expressed their intent to cancel the sales contract of the instant real estate on November 15, 2013, and the Defendants also rescinded the said sales contract on the grounds of D’s nonperformance. As such, D’s rescission on the instant real estate.

arrow