(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.12.11 2015가단14220

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.12.11 2015가단14220

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant is against the plaintiff,

(a) to take over the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) the annexed list;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2, 199, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis with the Defendant on April 2, 1999 as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). On April 2, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the instant contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to lease on a deposit basis on April 2, 200, with the Busan District Court’s East Busan District Court’s receipt of the registration office of establishment

B. On March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to extend the contract term of the instant contract, and on March 11, 2015, the Defendant had expressed an intention to re-contract the Plaintiff with a deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and the Plaintiff refused to renew the contract.

C. On April 13, 2015, the Defendant notified the termination of the instant contract, and the Plaintiff transferred its office to a new building around May 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 11, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) On April 13, 2015, according to the above facts, the contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the defendant's acceptance of the plaintiff's notice of termination of the contract of this case on or around April 13, 2015. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return 60,000,000 won to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. 2) The plaintiff also sought payment of damages for delay as to the obligation to return the deposit of this case. However, as seen below, the defendant's obligation to return the deposit of this case, the obligation to deliver the real estate of this case, and the obligation to perform the procedure for cancelling the registration of the establishment of the right to lease of this case is in simultaneous performance relationship. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff caused delay of payment to the defendant by performing the obligation to deliver the real estate of this case and the obligation to cancel the registration of the right to lease of

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.26 2015나65355

-전주지방법원 2018.11.30 2018가단10939

-부산지방법원 2015.05.22 2014나12536

-울산지방법원 2020.07.08 2019가단116084

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.12.10 2014가단33638