(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.08.16 2016나22964

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 2017.08.16 2016나22964

임차보증금등 반환

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is simultaneously with the delivery of the attached building from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the claim for return of lease deposit, the Plaintiff leased the attached building (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by E from July 5, 2012, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 90 million from August 9, 2012 to August 8, 2014 (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the said contract was explicitly renewed on August 9, 2014. The instant building transferred its ownership to F and G on May 23, 2014, and the Defendant purchased the said building on April 27, 2016 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 3, 2016.

According to the above facts, since the contract of this case terminated on August 8, 2016, the term of lease expires, the defendant who succeeded to the status of the lessor of the building of this case is obligated to return the lease deposit amounting to KRW 90 million from the plaintiff as requested by the plaintiff at the same time as the delivery of the building of this case from the plaintiff.

(A) The plaintiff filed a claim for the repayment of the lease deposit, but the plaintiff filed a claim for the return of the lease deposit with the delivery of the building of this case, and the plaintiff is residing in the building of this case, and the obligation of the defendant to return the lease deposit is not delayed, and the plaintiff's claim for damages on February 2, 199

A. The purport of the assertion is that the Plaintiff could not pay the lease deposit for the instant building on the wind, for which the Defendant could not from time receive the lease deposit for the instant building, and thus, the Plaintiff was confiscated the down payment of KRW 8 million. Since the Plaintiff could not recover KRW 2,546,740, such as the test cost for the building to be directors, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the total damages incurred by the Plaintiff (= KRW 8,546,740,000, KRW 2,546,740).

As to this, the defendant is against the plaintiff and the building of this case.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2014.12.09 2014가단19679

-서울동부지방법원 2015.11.13 2015가단10746

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.12.13 2019가단114926

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.13 2015가단5004019

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.08.08 2018가단6563