(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.04.10 2018나2426

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.04.10 2018나2426

보증금반환

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, on December 29, 2016, shall be Songpa-gu Seoul Songpa-gu Carryover (hereinafter “instant housing”).

A) As to the lease deposit, KRW 50 million, KRW 750,000 per month for rent, KRW 30,000 per month for management expenses, and the term of lease is determined from the date of delivery to February 24, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) The Plaintiff paid 50 million won to the Defendant the lease deposit, and around that time, the Plaintiff received a delivery of the instant house from the Defendant and resided therein.

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff demanded the return of the lease deposit to the Defendant on May 9, 2017. Accordingly, the Defendant returned the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 5 million on May 18, 2017, and KRW 43 million on June 5, 2017, among the lease deposit, the remainder of KRW 7 million would be settled and paid on the date of occupancy after having held office. 4) The Plaintiff retired from the instant house on June 9, 2017, and thereafter, on August 2, 2017, the new lessee moved in the instant house.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 10 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminated before the expiration of the contract period, but the defendant first returned part of the deposit to the plaintiff, and the remaining balance was agreed to be paid after the settlement on the occupancy date of the new lessee

(On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that the lease contract of this case was terminated due to the defendant's default, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit). Therefore, the fact that the new lessee moved into the house of this case on August 2, 2017 is as seen earlier, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay seven million won in the balance of the lease deposit to the plaintiff,

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.05.09 2017가단33885

-창원지방법원 2020.12.17 2020나52532

-서울남부지방법원 2020.05.21 2019가합109316

-서울서부지방법원 2018.08.17 2017가단235664

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.03.25 2020가단5278111