logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.05.24 2017가합58040
보증금반환
Text

1. The Defendants have the remainder, excluding 213.87 square meters, among the buildings listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants and the Defendants, setting the lease term as KRW 70 million from February 1, 2015 to January 31, 2017, with respect to the remainder (hereinafter “instant building”) with the exception of KRW 213.87 square meters on the third floor among the buildings listed in the attached list owned by the Defendants (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. In the real estate lease contract prepared at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease contract, the phrase “a lessee may rebuild or alter with the approval of the lessor, but at the expense of the lessee prior to the date of return of the real estate, to the original restoration key at the expense of the lessee” is printed in Article 5 of the terms of the contract, and the phrase “the obligation to restore the real estate to its original state at the time of maturity” may be stipulated

C. The instant lease agreement was terminated on January 31, 2017, and the expiration of the period of validity, and the Plaintiff continues to occupy the instant building and operate a restaurant thereafter, and the same year.

2. From January, 200, the Defendants did not pay to the Defendants the difference stipulated in the above lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 5-4, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the claim for the return of deposit KRW 70 million, since the lease contract of this case terminated upon the expiration of its validity, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff at the same time as the delivery of the building of this case from the Plaintiff.

B. (1) With respect to the remaining claim for return of KRW 200 million, the Plaintiff’s primary claim (A) incurred a total of KRW 200 million from May 2000 to April 2015 with the lessor’s first lease of the instant building with the lessor’s consent, and paid the instant building the sum of KRW 200 million.

arrow