(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.01.15 2018가단9818

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 2019.01.15 2018가단9818

보증금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the deposit amount of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 600,000,000 from February 27, 2016 to February 26, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the remainder amount of KRW 10 million, and KRW 90 million on February 27, 2016, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the parties' assertion (1) Since the contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period of validity, the Defendant is obligated to refund the deposit amount of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease renewal contract with the deposit of KRW 170 million prior to the expiration of the contract.

B. We examine the judgment: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to increase the deposit amount from KRW 170 million to KRW 170 million without rent when the term of the instant lease contract expires with respect to the instant housing at the end of December 2017; and (b) the term of the contract is extended from February 27, 2018 to February 26, 2020; and (c) in light of the content of the said agreement, it constitutes a contract to renew the instant lease; (d) the said KRW 100 million is a substitute for the payment of KRW 170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000 under the said lease contract; and (e) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease contract is terminated is without merit.

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the above lease renewal contract cannot be implemented because the housing of this case cannot be recovered more than KRW 120 million when the housing of this case is sold at auction.

However, the above reasons alone are not only impossible to refuse the implementation, but also the validity of the renewed contract.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.03.21 2018가합1183

-의정부지방법원 2018.10.11 2018노684

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.02.09 2017고단1814

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.04.25 2019가단73815

-인천지방법원 2016.07.14 2016고단1419