(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.12.16 2015가단224796

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) 인천지방법원 2015.12.16 2015가단224796

전세보증금반환 청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 23, 2013, the Plaintiff and C jointly leased the building No. 401, Dong-gu, Incheon, Dong-gu, Incheon, from the Defendant for the period of May 20, 2015, KRW 50 million, and KRW 50 million, to the Defendant.

(The plaintiff was in a marital relationship with the above C at the time of the commencement of the lease, but it seems that the above building was removed independently from the above building during the lease term due to consultation divorce, etc.

On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the return of KRW 50 million, based on the expiration of the period, based on the status of one of the co-Lessees. The Defendant received the said building from the above C on August 27, 2015 (including the report on the daily transfer) and returned the said amount of KRW 50 million to C on the following day.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 2]

2. The Plaintiff, in determining the cause of the claim, asserts that, upon the termination of the lease, the lessor, is liable to return to the Plaintiff part of the deposit equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share in accordance with the division ratio of each joint lessee, the Defendant, who is the lessor, shall claim against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 25 million and its delay damages.

In light of the fact that the joint lessee’s obligation to pay the deposit and the rent is jointly and severally liable for the lease relationship between many parties, and that the joint lessee’s obligation to return the deposit is an indivisible obligation, etc., it is highly likely that each joint lessee’s obligation to return the deposit may be recognized as an indivisible obligation that can be exercised in accordance with the transactional concept (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da95861, Mar. 29, 2012). The Plaintiff also maintained the position that each joint lessee may claim the return of the total amount of the deposit by citing the legal doctrine of indivisible claim at the beginning of the instant lawsuit, and part of the joint lessee is part of the joint lessee.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.6.8. 선고 2016가단260633 판결

-서울남부지방법원 2017.06.08 2016가단260633

-서울서부지방법원 2017.09.29 2017가단222132

-수원지방법원 2017.12.15 2017가합16795

-의정부지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단13225