logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원논산지원 2016.06.23 2016가단755
임대차보증금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 75,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 18, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

A. On December 17, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with a fixed period of KRW 75 million from December 25, 2011 to December 24, 2013, with respect to the E Apartment 8, Dong-dong, 504 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On December 25, 2011, the Plaintiff paid a deposit of KRW 75 million to C, received the instant apartment on the same day, and filed a move-in report with the instant apartment as the domicile on December 26, 201, and received a fixed date.

C. After that, the Plaintiff and C agreed to extend the term of the instant lease agreement by December 24, 2015.

C on August 10, 2015, the Defendant sold the instant apartment, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment on August 12, 2015.

E. On November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a notice to the effect that “it is scheduled not to renew the instant lease agreement any longer, and if the term of the lease expires, the repayment of the deposit will be returned” by content-certified mail, and the said notice was delivered to the Defendant around that time.

F. On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff received the order of lease registration (2015Kadan25) from the Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch on December 30, 2015, and moved to the current domicile on December 31, 2016 after completing the registration of the housing lease on December 31, 2015.

However, the Defendant did not refund the lease deposit, but the Plaintiff did not lock the door lock locker of the apartment of this case and notify the Defendant of its password.

(g) At the time, the current lock locking device of the apartment of this case was a number key device. The defendant replaced the front locking locking device of the apartment of this case with the recommendation of the real estate real estate real estate real estate agent, which is traded with himself, around April 8, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3, and 4-1, 2, Gap evidence and the purport of whole pleadings.

arrow