(영문) 창원지방법원거창지원 2016.12.06 2016가단1460

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) 창원지방법원거창지원 2016.12.06 2016가단1460

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 22, 2015 to September 23, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 17, 2013, the Plaintiff leased (i) 25,00,000,000 of the lease deposit money, and (ii) from January 22, 2013 to January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 25,000,000 as the lease deposit money to the Defendant on the same day.

B. On November 20, 2014, prior to the expiration of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement has expired on January 21, 2015, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from January 22, 2015 to September 23, 2016, which is the day following the expiration of the lease deposit amount of KRW 25,000,000, and the day following the expiration of the lease term, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The defendant's assertion was first agreed to repay the defendant's obligation to return the lease deposit, and therefore, the defendant asserted that there is no obligation to the plaintiff against the defendant, but D has exempted the defendant from the obligation to return the lease deposit.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff exempted the defendant from the obligation to return the lease deposit, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

Then, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should deduct the unpaid electricity fee of 427,000 won, but there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff had the unpaid electricity fee in the process of using the building of this case. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

4. Thus, we conclude that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.08.09 2014가단258082

-대구지방법원경주지원 2019.09.04 2019가단1308

-부산지방법원 2015.03.24 2014가단87515

-부산지방법원 2016.11.15 2016가단27326

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.01.13 2015가단11515