(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.01.20 2016나2213 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2017.01.20 2016나2213

임대차보증금 등

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party C, and D are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant (appointed party).

Reasons

From around 2002, the Plaintiff leased and resided in the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant, Appointor C, and D (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) from around 2002.

On October 24, 2010, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, etc. renewed the lease and entered into a lease agreement with a lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000 and a one-year term of KRW 1 year (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Plaintiff, Defendant, etc. agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement, which had been implicitly renewed on June 2014, and to refund the lease deposit by March 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings are terminated by agreement. Thus, the defendant et al. is jointly obligated to return the lease deposit KRW 10,000,000 to the plaintiff.

The defendant, at the same time, cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before the building of this case is delivered.

Since the duty to return the lease deposit of the Defendant, etc. upon the termination of the instant lease agreement and the duty to deliver the Plaintiff’s building are concurrently performed, the Defendant, etc. is obligated to return the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff at the same time with the delivery of the instant building from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

The defendant asserts that the costs of repairing boiler and water leakage cost deduction should be deducted from the lease deposit because the boiler was cut to the plaintiff's management fault and paid 420,000 won to repair costs, and the water leakage water rate of 1,777,660 won was paid.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s boiler was stove with only 1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the plaintiff is responsible for the water leakage.

(2) shall not be deemed to be a party; or

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.09.07 2016나2561

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.12.10 2014가단34922

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.05.25 2015가단29024

-대전지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가단10019

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.09.22 2017가단215833