logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.17 2016나60003
보증금반환
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant building”) Nos. 208 and 209 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) of 10,000,000 won, monthly rent of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 from the Defendant, and the Defendant removed the structures installed by the previous lessee of the instant building until January 29, 2016, and delivers the instant building to the Plaintiff as the basic facilities. The Plaintiff, upon delivery from the Defendant, agreed to remodel the building into a reading room and pay the Plaintiff rent from April 10, 2016.

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant the lease deposit.

C. On the upper floor of the instant building, however, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that he would terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground of the noise and vibration of the upper floor of the building around February 2016, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement.

On March 9, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff the word “5,00,000 won of real estate brokerage commission, 7,322,40 won of removal cost, 12,322,400 won in total, 37,67,600 won in refund, and 37,67,600 won in return.” The Plaintiff sent to the Defendant the word “The Plaintiff was paid KRW 3,150,000 in the real estate confirmation of the President’s real estate.” On the other hand, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant the word “The Plaintiff received KRW 3,150,00 from the President’s real estate verification of the President’s real estate.” On the other hand, both sides were sent from the bank to the sender [the statement included in the account transfer day and the return amount]. It is the chief Justice who has been issued by the bank.” The Plaintiff’s work that is not long-standing.

E. Around that time, the Defendant returned KRW 37,677,600 to the Plaintiff, deducting the total of KRW 12,322,400,000, and the total of KRW 12,322,400,000, for the removal of the structure for the teaching of a light at KRW 50 million.

【Ground of recognition” has no dispute, Gap 1, 2, and Eul 3 respectively.

arrow