(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.15 2017가합26792

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 2018.06.15 2017가합26792

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 290,000,000.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease a building with the wife population C (hereinafter “instant housing”) with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 300 million and the lease term from August 15, 2012 to July 23, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 300 million to the Defendant according to the terms of the said lease agreement.

B. While the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed and the contractual relationship between the original and the Defendant remains in existence even after July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of Oct. 1, 2016 that he/she was removed from the office around March 1, 2017 to April 4, 2016, and thus, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her demand to refund the lease deposit. Accordingly, the Defendant responded to the refund of the lease deposit by July 20, 2017.

However, the defendant has not returned the lease deposit to the plaintiff until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1, 3, and 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the instant lease agreement was concluded around October 2016, or it was concluded on or around January 2, 2017 after three months from the date the Defendant received notice of termination from the Plaintiff, and thus, the termination became effective on or around January 2, 2017. Therefore, Article 6-2 (Termination of Contracts in Cases of Implied Renewal) (1) In cases where a contract is renewed pursuant to Article 6(1), notwithstanding Article 6(2), the lessee may notify the lessor of the termination of the contract at any time

(2) The termination under paragraph (1) shall take effect when three months elapse from the date on which the lessor receives the notification; and

The Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 290,000,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 100,000,000, which the Plaintiff was paid from the Defendant at KRW 300,000,000, which was paid by the

2.3.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법 제6조의2

유사 판례

-대법원 2024. 1. 11. 선고 2023다258672 판결

-서울서부지방법원 2020.07.02 2019가단248053

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2021.04.30 2021가단201800

-전주지방법원 2018.10.05 2017가단19489

-창원지방법원진주지원 2019.07.23 2019가단33285