(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.10.05 2018가단506822

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) 광주지방법원 2018.10.05 2018가단506822

보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 59,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

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

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 23, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) 201 units of the lease deposit KRW 69,00,000, and the term of lease from January 23, 2016 to January 23, 2018, the Plaintiff paid all the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. From February 2017, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant lease agreement to the Defendant, and the Defendant promised to refund the lease deposit to the Defendant by December 13, 2017, but did not comply therewith.

C. On December 14, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a certificate to the Defendant stating that “The Plaintiff would have to extend the instant lease agreement, and thus would return the lease deposit and request the refund thereof,” but did not reach the Defendant due to the absence of closure.

On February 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the return of the lease deposit on grounds of the termination of the lease agreement, and the duplicate of the instant complaint containing the intent of the Plaintiff not to maintain the lease agreement is the same.

3.2. It was served on the Defendant.

E. During the lawsuit of this case, the Defendant returned KRW 10,000,000, out of the lease deposit of this case to the Plaintiff via the Plaintiff’s father.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of determination, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed and maintained, and the agreement was terminated upon the lapse of three months after the delivery of a copy of the complaint containing the declaration of intent to terminate the lease agreement. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return the remainder of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff KRW 59,00,000.

Although the defendant asserts that he could not return the lease deposit by interfering with the lease contract with the plaintiff's subsequent lessee, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.04.09 2014가단15067

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.10.15 2020가단3075

-의정부지방법원 2019.10.18 2019가단6478

-울산지방법원 2021.02.10 2019가단15303

-창원지방법원통영지원 2020.07.22 2020가단12287