logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.04.07 2015나9172
임대보증금반환
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim (including the part added in the trial) is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) decided to lease a building on H’s ground from the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 35 million for lease and KRW 4.1 million for rent, deposited KRW 10 million on April 2, 2007, and KRW 20 million on April 30, 2007 into the Defendant’s account, and paid the remainder of KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s children in cash. However, the Nam-gu Office accepted H’s land for use as a park site, and the Plaintiff removed from the leased building on September 25, 2010. Accordingly, the lease between the Defendant and the Defendant was terminated at the time when the Defendant lost its ownership on H’s land, and the Defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit of KRW 35 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment that the Defendant paid to the Defendant after the Plaintiff lost its ownership on the land.

B. Defendant 1) The lease between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was in the form of both the original deposit and the rent. As the Plaintiff did not remain due to the delay of rent, the content of the contract was modified to lease KRW 5.3 million without a deposit on October 18, 2007. The Plaintiff did not receive a separate payment of KRW 5 million in cash from the Plaintiff, and the amount of KRW 30 million paid on April 2007 is not a deposit but a delinquent payment. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff is not obligated to return the deposit, the Plaintiff is not obligated to return the deposit. Accordingly, even if it is obligated to return the deposit to the Plaintiff, the amount of KRW 4.6 million that is unpaid to the Plaintiff [5.3 million x 35 months x 35 months (from October 18, 2007 to September 25, 201) - the Plaintiff’s credit should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s credit amount of KRW 360 million.6 million.

3 Even after the Defendant lost its ownership, the Plaintiff’s use of and profit from the leased building as before the date of leaving the leased building cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment.

(a) the facts of recognition;

arrow