logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.14 2015가단178489
임대차보증금 등
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,280,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from September 22, 2015 to November 4, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around August 2011, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant the second and third floors of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s ground building C (hereinafter “instant building”) at KRW 2 years from September 20, 201, the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million, and the monthly rent of KRW 1.8 million.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Lease of this case")

The lease of this case expired on September 19, 2015 after one renewal, and the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant on September 21, 2015.

(B) On October 23, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the building of this case was delivered by notifying the entrance password to the Plaintiff on October 23, 2015, is insufficient to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the building of this case was delivered, and there is no counter-proof otherwise).

On May 12, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 13 million to the Plaintiff as the return of the lease deposit of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 5, 27 each entry

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of the lease deposit amount of KRW 17 million and its delay damages, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. Judgment as to the defendant's defense of mutual aid

A. Although the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff with respect to the unpaid monthly rent of three months from July 20, 2015 to October 22, 2016, the part of KRW 5.580,000,000 for three months from July 20, 2015 to September 21, 2015 (=1.80,000 won x (2/30 days for two months)), the Defendant’s defense that the delivery date of the instant building was unpaid as of September 21, 2015 cannot be accepted.

B. The defendant's objection to the cost of restitution within the range of 2 million won, which the plaintiff is the lessee who is the part of the cost of restitution, is entitled to the existence and scope of the duty of restitution under the lease agreement of this case, is justified.

However, this part goes beyond this, namely, electricity, water, urban gas, glass, and lurering of the defendant's assertion.

arrow