(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.07.22 2019가단274534

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) 서울남부지방법원 2020.07.22 2019가단274534

임차보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) is simultaneously with the delivery of buildings listed in the attached Table from the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

Of the third floor buildings constructed around October 1986, the Plaintiff was leased at KRW 30 million from June 201 to KRW 100,000,000 for the rent of KRW 30 million. The Defendant purchased the lease contract around February 2016 and concluded a new lease contract on June 28, 2016 with the Plaintiff as the rental period on June 22, 2017. The deposit amount was KRW 30 million and the monthly rent was increased to KRW 47.8 square meters, and the lease period was extended to KRW 47.8 square meters for the following month; the Plaintiff demanded the return of KRW 30 million for the reasons that the lease period was terminated on June 2019; the Plaintiff did not request the Plaintiff to return the deposit for the reasons that the Plaintiff had no dispute over the return of the deposit from the end of the lease period until June 2019.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff sought the return of the deposit amount of KRW 30 million to the Defendant on the ground of the termination of the lease agreement, the repair cost due to the damage to the building indicated in the attached list due to the pet dog claimed by the Defendant was not subject to deduction in light of the fact that the Defendant or the former owner did not raise any special issue as to the pet dog breeding.

On or after June 22, 2019, the defendant filed a counterclaim seeking the delivery of the building stated in the attached Table with payment of remaining money and simultaneous performance after deducting KRW 400,000 from the monthly rent, which is equivalent to the profit of the plaintiff's possession, and KRW 3 million from the repair cost due to the plaintiff's written completion.

The leased object was damaged in the Domine Rental Contract.

Even if the lessee is an object during the lease period.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2017.06.27 2017가단1547

-수원지방법원 2017.07.19 2017가단17388

-청주지방법원 2017.06.27 2017가단101409

-수원지방법원 2016.05.25 2016가단8486

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.03.08 2015가단33885