logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.04.05 2015가단520919
임대차보증금
Text

1. The Defendant’s respective KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiffs, respectively, and 5% per annum from August 1, 2015 to August 24, 2015, respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 20, 2013, Plaintiff A entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 70 million and the period from March 30, 2013 to March 30, 2015 with respect to D apartment 404, 1306, Dong-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, for the lease deposit amounting to KRW 70 million and paid to the Defendant around that time.

B. On June 7, 2014, Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 70 million and KRW 70 million with the Defendant on April 26, 2015, and paid the Defendant KRW 70 million.

C. On July 10, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiffs a document certifying the termination of each lease agreement, and on July 20, 2015, the Plaintiffs consented to the termination of each lease agreement and notified the Defendant to deliver each apartment of this case.

On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiffs delivered each of the instant apartment units to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-1 and 6-1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, each of the instant lease agreements was agreed upon by the plaintiffs and the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs 70 million won each lease deposit and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from August 1, 2015 to August 24, 2015, which is the day following the day on which the plaintiffs delivered each apartment of this case, to August 24, 2015, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow