(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.02.06 2019가단543324

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 2020.02.06 2019가단543324

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 40,000,000.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On December 4, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million, the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, the lease deposit amount of KRW 1050,000,000, and the lease deposit was paid to the Defendant around that time.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant, until December 19, 2014, changed the term of lease on November 3, 2012 to KRW 1.180,000 per month, and agreed to increase the rent to KRW 1.230,00 per month as of November 2014, but to reduce the rent to KRW 90,000 per month on December 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff asserts that the lease agreement was terminated by January 2019 between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, which was written in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the ground for claim as a whole.

According to Gap evidence No. 8, the plaintiff's agent, around January 29, 2019, Eul answer to the purport that "I would like to close the child-care center in operation of the building of this case, I would not know that I would not know that I would like to promptly call, and that I would like to promptly call." The plaintiff's agent, "I would like to know," and the fact that C requested the return of the lease deposit to the real estate intermediary is not a dispute between the parties.

However, the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence No. 6 and No. 2 comprehensively based on the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Defendant is trying to return the lease deposit in order to smoothly resolve the lease deposit without legally recognizing the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit in the content of the Plaintiff’s request for the payment of the lease deposit, and the Defendant responded to the purport that the rent and the management fee will continue to be paid. In full view of the above facts alone, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the lease contract.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.02.06 2019가단543324

-서울서부지방법원 2018.01.25 2017나35810

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.11.29 2017가단12199

-전주지방법원남원지원 2019.04.03 2018가단1651

-서울동부지방법원 2020.12.18 2020나126