(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.06.23 2019가단9948

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) 서울북부지방법원 2020.06.23 2019가단9948

임차보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) is on the second floor of the brick slves slves roof in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease a lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000, KRW 50.88 square meters on a 2nd floor of multi-household multi-household housing (three households) located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant housing”), 13.90 square meters on 2nd floor, 50.88 square meters on 50.88 square meters on 50.88 square meters on 2nd floor, which is owned by the Defendant, with the Defendant, and resided in the instant housing after paying the said deposit (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. On June 12, 2019, the Plaintiff demanded the return of the lease deposit after the term of lease expires, but did not refund the deposit, and moved out on June 12, 2019 after leaving some animals in the instant house, and completed the registration order on the instant house on July 26, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the lease deposit is KRW 80,000,000 on the ground of the termination of the lease contract of this case, and the payment of KRW 1,50,000 for the repair cost incurred due to the intrusion by the spawn of the living room floor of the housing of this case, the water tank and sewerage strawing, the lives of the bathing room, even if the spawn, the spawn damage, and the damages for delay.

On the other hand, the defendant is entitled to 80,000,000 won of the lease deposit against the plaintiff as a counterclaim, and at the same time he is entitled to deliver the house of this case to the defendant.

B. 1) First of all, in light of the claim for repair costs of the principal claim, the lessor bears the duty of repair if it is sufficient to prevent the lessee from using and gaining profit from the leased object unless it is repaired in the event of damage or impairment to the leased object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96984, Apr. 29, 2010), and the Plaintiff’s expenditure was to the extent that the use and profit-making of the instant house would be hindered.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.11.25 2016가단17353

-수원지방법원 2018.10.04 2018가단15228

-부산지방법원 2015.10.02 2014가단240361

-서울행정법원 2018.01.18 2017구단66636

-서울남부지방법원 2019.10.10 2018가단264158