logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2016.04.22 2015가단74187
임대차보증금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. D around January 14, 2014, paid a total of KRW 80,000,000 as a deposit for lease to the Defendant and leased the instant building.

B. After that, when D moved into E and F ground buildings (hereinafter “Plaintiff building”) owned by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff resided in the instant building, the Plaintiff and the Defendant newly concluded a lease agreement on the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) around March 15, 2015, and the lease deposit was replaced by the amount of KRW 80,000,000 that D paid to the Defendant.

C. However, on May 28, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a document verifying the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground that the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement were not fulfilled, and the said content-certified mail reached the Plaintiff around that time.

On the other hand, on March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease transfer agreement with D on the instant building and acquired the right of lease from D.

E. Therefore, since the instant lease contract was terminated by the Defendant’s declaration of termination, the Defendant is obligated to pay 80,000,000 won to the Plaintiff, who is in the lessee’s position of the instant lease contract, or the Plaintiff, who is in the assignee’s position of the right to lease as to the instant building, as well as to deliver the instant building from the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine the argument that the Defendant is obligated to pay the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, who is a lessee of the instant lease agreement, as the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated.

In full view of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement around March 15, 2015, and as a special agreement, “H (hereinafter “H”) with the Plaintiff’s husband G, a representative of the Plaintiff.

arrow