(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.07.25 2018가단11322

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) 서울서부지방법원 2019.07.25 2018가단11322

임차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant: 11,538,461 won, 11,538,461 won, F, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) B, Selection G, and Plaintiff (Appointed Party) C.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 11, 2008, the network A entered into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant, and made a lease agreement with the Defendant on December 11, 2008, with a deposit of KRW 50 million for the leased object, and the period until December 24, 2010 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant around that time.

B. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, and the deceased A requested the Defendant to return the lease deposit from June 14, 2017, and on November 10, 2018, delivered the leased object of this case.

C. The deceased and other deceased on November 22, 2018, and the deceased and deceased on November 22, 2018, and the deceased and the deceased’s heir E, children, F, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) B, Selection G, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) C, and Appointed H are the successors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the deceased’s heir heir E 11,538,461 won (=50 million won x 3/13, discarded below won; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Appointor F, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) B, the Appointor G, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) C, and the Appoint, respectively, KRW 7,692,307 (=50 million x 2/13) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from November 11, 2018 to the date of full payment, following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.

3. The Defendant’s assertion argues that the deceased should compensate for damages arising from nonperformance of duty to restore, but there is no evidence to prove that the deceased incurred the duty to restore the leased object of this case, or that there is no evidence to prove the amount of expenses to restore.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.11.30 2016가단1819

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.29 2013가단297621

-부산지방법원 2016.11.23 2015가합3696

-창원지방법원 2020.07.09 2020가합51115

-대구지방법원김천지원 2019.01.25 2018가합315