logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.06.15 2015가단19900
임대차보증금
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 9,710,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from July 17, 2015 to June 15, 2016.

Reasons

1. On August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) on August 20, 2009, leased 1/2 from the Defendant, the amount of KRW 10 million, monthly rent, KRW 80,000,000 among the KRW 203 (hereinafter “instant store”).

On December 12, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant increased the deposit to KRW 5 million. On September 9, 2010, the terms and conditions of the lease were modified, and the lease period was set at KRW 203, the entire lease object, KRW 30,000,000 for two years from September 24, 2010, KRW 1,90,000 per month.

The plaintiff received 1/2 parts of the store of this case according to the above revised contract. In that context, the defendant had goods, including the ices/Irons, sold by the defendant.

On October 4, 2010 and October 5, 201, upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff entered into a warehouse business operator agreement with the warehouse business operator to keep the goods and pay the storage fees of KRW 150,000 per month in the two containers. The Plaintiff agreed to deduct the storage fees from the monthly rent to be paid to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 1750,000,000 from monthly rent of KRW 1,90,000 after deducting KRW 1,50,000 from the monthly rent of KRW 1,00,00, and continued to pay KRW 1,750,00 per month from that time.

On September 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, two years later, increased the rent by KRW 2 million per month while renewal of the lease contract. The Plaintiff also paid KRW 1.5 million per month after deducting KRW 1.5 million.

On November 26, 2014, the Defendant demanded the rent increase, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the lease agreement, and the Defendant began to seek a new lessee by requesting a licensed real estate agent to rent the instant store.

While the Defendant was unable to return the deposit to the Plaintiff because it was unable for the Plaintiff to recover the deposit, the Plaintiff was unable to complete the business on April 6, 2015 and the instant store was located.

The defendant.

arrow