(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가합9145

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 2015.04.03 2014가합9145

임대차보증금

Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to receive real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 15, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D to lease real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with a deposit of KRW 160 million, monthly rent of KRW 60 million, and the lease term from September 10, 2010 to September 9, 2012. At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 160 million to D.

B. On July 21, 2012, between D and D, the Plaintiff: (a) increased the deposit under the said lease agreement to KRW 200 million; (b) increased the monthly rent to KRW 7.5 million; and (c) concluded a lease agreement with the term of lease from July 21, 2012 to July 20, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (d) paid KRW 40 million increased to D around that time.

C. The Defendants, the parents of D, transferred ownership of the instant apartment on January 24, 2014 during the instant lease agreement.

The Plaintiff notified D and the Defendants that the Plaintiff did not intend to extend the instant lease agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on July 20, 2014, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendants, the assignee of the instant apartment, are jointly and severally liable to return the deposit amount of KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants asserted that, first of all, since the Plaintiff did not deliver the apartment of this case, the Defendants did not have an obligation to return the deposit.

However, since the obligation of the Defendants to return the lease deposit and the Plaintiff’s obligation to deliver the apartment of this case are in the simultaneous performance relationship, the Defendants’ assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff’s obligation of delivery is the obligation of good faith

However, the above argument by the defendants is respectively obligated.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2020.05.12 2020가단101735

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.02.04 2014가합2730

-창원지방법원 2018.06.08 2017나61413

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.31 2016가단5263747

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.05.07 2019가단78902