logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.21 2016가단5292486
임대차보증금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 273,972 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 8, 2016 to June 21, 2017.

Reasons

1. As to the cause of claim

A. On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the deposit amount of KRW 24 and 25 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant, Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu, Seoul, for a fixed period of KRW 20 million, KRW 1.5 million per month, and KRW 1.5 million from May 30, 2014 to May 30, 2016, and the fact that the Plaintiff delivered the said real estate to the Defendant on May 30, 2016 that the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff delivered the said real estate to the Defendant on May 30, 2016 by comprehensively taking into account the respective entries and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A and 3 (including each number).

According to the above facts, the above lease contract is terminated upon the expiration of the term, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above deposit amounting to KRW 20 million and damages for delay from May 31, 2016, which is the day following the delivery date.

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of premium amounting to KRW 18 million with the former lessee of the instant real estate. As the Defendant demanded that the instant real estate be immediately handed over at the end of the instant lease and the Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity for the Plaintiff to recover the premium from the new lessee, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to refund the damages equivalent to the said premium and the delay damages.

On the other hand, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of the opportunity to recover the premium as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion.

2. As to the defendant's defense of payment, the defendant's defense is proved to have fully repaid the deposit amount of KRW 20 million.

According to the evidence No. 1, the defendant deposited the plaintiff as the principal on September 7, 2016 with the Seoul Central District Court No. 4543, Sept. 7, 2016. According to the above facts, it is recognized that the defendant deposited the plaintiff as the principal of the principal on September 7, 2016. The above facts are as of September 7, 2016.

arrow