logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.18 2015나2009378
임대차보증금
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim extended or reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

Reasons

1. The reasons stated in this part are the same as the entry of the first instance court’s “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment, except for those written by the court as follows. Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third 9-10 of the judgment of the first instance court "(D) has been given a large amount of money without the plaintiff's consent, and the defendant has made a large amount of money as follows.

D. However, unlike the above promise on August 3, 2012, the defendant extended KRW 150 million from the National Bank of Korea as collateral to the instant officetel, and without completing the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon, on June 12, 2013, the defendant borrowed KRW 400 million from the Hyundai Switzerland 2 Savings Bank as collateral without the plaintiff's consent, and on June 12, 2013, borrowed KRW 1,000,000 per month to the plaintiff" in Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court of the first instance, "as above, the defendant will bring KRW 1,00,000 per month to the plaintiff" in Part 18 of the judgment of the third instance.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the instant lease agreement on the claim for the return of the lease deposit expired, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 420 million for the lease deposit. 2) The Defendant agreed to the effect that “the Plaintiff is liable for the management expenses incurred in the instant officetel from August 2013 to the time when the Plaintiff was refunded the lease deposit and the instant officetel was transferred from the instant officetel to the time when the director was removed” (Article 1(5) of the Agreement and Article 2(2)(b) of the Agreement), but the Defendant failed to properly implement the said agreement, and the Plaintiff paid or delayed payment for the management expenses or the arrears incurred in the instant officetel.

C. Meanwhile, management expenses and late payment charges incurred from the instant officetel from August 2013 to August 2015.

arrow