(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.08.22 2017가단212890

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) 서울서부지방법원 2019.08.22 2017가단212890

임대차보증금

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2.(a)

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) on 1,741.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, as the owner of neighborhood living facilities and housing located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, operated the telecom in the above building, and on May 2014, the Defendant: (a) determined and leased, from May 13, 2014 to May 13, 2017, the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 750,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 24,000,000,000 from May 13, 2014 to May 13, 2017.

Since then, the plaintiff mainly operated the telecom business against Chinese collective tourists.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1, 2, and the purport of the whole argument

2. The plaintiff who is the cause of the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim is the cause of the principal lawsuit, and since the lease was terminated, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to return 3,324,450 won remaining after deducting the plaintiff's unpaid public charges of KRW 9,475,550, and the cost of replacing the original course of the plaintiff's compensation from KRW 7,200,000,000.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff should compensate for the 193,796,050 won, such as the boiler repair cost caused by flooding of the boiler room during the lease period, the purchase cost or market price of the damaged and destroyed equipment, public charges, public charges, the removal and restoration cost of hot water pipe, the sales loss cost of the 13-month period, and the compensation for the amount of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

(The defendant asserts that the plaintiff company is now closed down its business. 3. Judgment of the plaintiff company and the counterclaim are also reviewed.

A. According to the fact that the obligation to return the deposit amount of KRW 50 million upon the termination of the lease is recognized, the Defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff, as the lease is terminated.

B. On the other hand, the money that the Plaintiff is liable to pay to the Defendant, i.e., the Defendant.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2017.03.23 2016가단12531

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.06.20 2017가단10103

-광주지방법원 2015.10.28 2015가단20136

-인천지방법원 2019.10.15 2019가단17583

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.01.27 2015가단1263