(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.04.12 2017나4541

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 2018.04.12 2017나4541

건물명도 등

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant from the plaintiff 23,861,00 won to October 22, 2015.

Reasons

1. Determination on claims related to a lease agreement

A. 1) On May 21, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant housing owned by the Plaintiff by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, and the lease period of KRW 22, 201 from June 22, 2011 to June 21, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

A) The Plaintiff concluded the instant lease agreement. Under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff delivered the instant house to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. Following the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the said lease deposit was reduced to KRW 20,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the lease deposit”) and the lease deposit that was reduced to KRW 20,000.

(2) On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a letter verifying that the instant lease contract will be terminated on the grounds of two or more overdue rents.

The mail was delivered to the defendant around that time.

3) The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent up to October 21, 2015 in accordance with the instant lease agreement, but thereafter, without paying the rent, it occupied and used the instant house up to the date of closing argument in the trial. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

B. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated lawfully, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to deliver the house of this case to the plaintiff to restore it to its original state and pay the unpaid rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent.

C. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the Plaintiff redeems the deposit for lease of this case.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff is obligated to return the lease deposit of this case to the defendant, and the defendant's objection is.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.05.03 2017가단533231

-서울북부지방법원 2020.06.17 2020가단2219

-서울북부지방법원 2019.05.14 2018가단142169

-서울서부지방법원 2020.06.05 2019가단242925

-창원지방법원 2016.03.18 2015가단21816