(영문) 대전지방법원논산지원 2016.06.15 2016가합59

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) 대전지방법원논산지원 2016.06.15 2016가합59

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, the Defendant leased KRW 210,000,000 for lease deposit and received KRW 210,000,000,000,000 for lease deposit. Since the lease contract was terminated, C was delivered to the Defendant. On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order as to the right to claim the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant by the District Court Decision 2015TT17500, with respect to the right to claim the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant, and this can be recognized.

B. According to this, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the collection right holder, KRW 210,000,000,000, and damages for delay thereof, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. The defendant asserts that the collection claim was extinguished by returning the lease deposit before delivering the seizure and collection order.

1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1-4, the defendant newly leased the above building to E on October 5, 2015, KRW 80 million, monthly rent of KRW 1100,000,000,000, out of the existing lease deposit with a third party agreement with the previous lessee C, and replaced the existing lease deposit with a new lease deposit, and returned the difference of KRW 130,000,000 (= KRW 210,000,000 - KRW 80,000) to C. Since the latter is paid monthly rent to the defendant under the lease agreement on October 5, 2015, the defendant agreed to terminate the lease agreement with C on October 5, 2015, and returned part of the lease deposit to the lessee and returned the remainder of the lease deposit, the defendant's assertion that the collection order had already been extinguished prior to the extinguishment of the lease deposit and the collection order.

B. As to this, the plaintiff is a lease agreement between the defendant and E.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.07.26 2016가단71436

-수원지방법원 2018.11.14 2017가합26938

-수원지방법원 2017.01.25 2016가단29650

-서울동부지방법원 2015.11.04 2015나23200

-수원지방법원 2020.02.12 2019가합18061