logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2019.07.10 2019가단48
계약해지 및 건물인도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 7, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 11.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.2 million, and the lease period of KRW 1.2 million.

B. On September 2018 and December 11, 2018, the Defendant did not pay the rent for three-months, and the Plaintiff urged the payment of rent several times, but the Defendant sent to the Defendant a document verifying the termination of the instant lease agreement on December 27, 2018.

C. On December 26, 2018, the Defendant moved from the instant apartment to the Defendant’s present domicile, and thereafter, the Defendant was 2918.

1. 24. 24. The Plaintiff sent content-certified mail to require the Plaintiff to refund the remainder of KRW 7.9 million deposit after deducting the overdue rent of KRW 3.6 million from the overdue rent of KRW 11.5 million.

Accordingly, on April 29, 2019, the Defendant deposited KRW 4,80,000 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendant refused to pay the lease deposit with KRW 3,60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and 1.6,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000,00

(No. 713). 【Ground of Recognition】 There is no dispute, Gap’s No. 1-9, 12, and 15, Eul’s evidence No. 2, Eul’s video and the purport of the whole pleadings, as shown in Eul’s evidence No. 1.

2. According to the facts found in the determination on the claim for rent in arrears, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff rent of KRW 1.2 million per month pursuant to the instant lease agreement. Since the Defendant did not pay rent for September 2018 and December 3, 2018, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 3.6 million in arrears.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to deduct the overdue rent when depositing part of the lease deposit of this case, and thus, it is deemed that it was appropriated and extinguished for the lease deposit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is correct.

arrow