(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.06.04 2014가단29532

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) 광주지방법원 2015.06.04 2014가단29532

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant is simultaneously with the delivery from the plaintiff of Naju-si of a bridge 200 square meters of a 36-story building.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On May 1, 1995, the Plaintiff leased the building as stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter the building of this case) from the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000, and two years.

Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant, received delivery of the instant building from the Defendant, and commenced restaurant business.

Since then, the above lease contract has been implicitly renewed, and the plaintiff expressed his/her intention to terminate the lease contract to the defendant around December 2004, and around that time, the plaintiff suspended the restaurant business from the building of this case.

The plaintiff did not pay the monthly rent to the defendant from August 2004 to December 2004.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness D's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above fact of finding that the lease relationship with respect to the building of this case was terminated by the plaintiff's declaration of termination on or around December 2004. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of the lease deposit 28 million won (=30 million won - 2 million won - 5 million won) after deducting the lease relationship with respect to the building of this case from the plaintiff's declaration of termination, barring special circumstances.

[On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged that he notified the defendant of the delivery of the building of this case upon the closure of the business on March 20, 2005, and claimed for the payment of damages for delay on the above lease deposit. However, the tenant's duty to specify the leased object and the duty to return the deposit to the lessor is in a simultaneous performance relationship, and in order to extinguish the lessor's right of defense of simultaneous performance and to recognize the lessor's obligation to return the deposit due to delay of the lease deposit, the lessee must provide the lessor with the performance of the order of the leased object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da77697, Feb. 26, 2002; 201Da7697, Feb. 26, 2002; 202; 3.

such performance shall be recognized as having provided such performance.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원여주지원 2019.04.25 2018가단7704

-서울북부지방법원 2016.07.07 2015가합25635

-서울서부지방법원 2016.04.21 2015가단223780

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.04.09 2018가단124074

-서울남부지방법원 2019.08.27 2019가합102339