(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.04.15 2014나12382

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 2015.04.15 2014나12382

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Grounds for the court's explanation concerning this case are stated by the court of the first instance.

1. Of the determination on the cause of the claim, the portion of “10 million won for monthly rent (including value-added tax)” is written as “the monthly rent of 8.25 million won (including value-added tax) up to December 2013, and the monthly rent of 10 million won (including value-added tax) from January 2014 to January 25, 201, as “the monthly rent of 10 million won (including value-added tax)”;

2. Of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the part concerning the instant claim is written as follows, and the part concerning the instant claim is as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, in addition to adding the part concerning the instant claim, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

[Supplementary Use]

A. The Defendant agreed to reduce F and monthly rent at KRW 8,250,000 before entering into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiffs, and paid KRW 8,250,000 as monthly rent from August 2012 to December 2013, which was after the Plaintiffs succeeded to the instant lease agreement. On December 2013, the Defendant requested the Plaintiffs to allow the lease of the instant real estate at the same amount as the above amount for the next one year. However, upon refusal by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to terminate the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiffs on December 2013, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim cannot be complied with.

However, as seen earlier, since the monthly rent after January 2014 of the instant lease is KRW 10 million, the Plaintiffs demanded the Defendant to pay KRW 10 million from the rent on January 2014 and did not comply with the Defendant’s request for reduction, it cannot be said that the Defendant acquired the right to terminate the instant lease contract.

Therefore, even if the defendant expressed his intention to terminate the contract to the plaintiffs, it cannot be said that the above contract was terminated, so even if the defendant acted to the effect that the contract of this case was terminated, the statement in the evidence No. 1 and the testimony of witness G of the trial party is alone.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2014.10.14 2014가단29303

-수원지방법원 2019.02.14 2018가단23892

-서울남부지방법원 2015.12.08 2014가합10879

-서울남부지방법원 2020.02.18 2019가단224706

-수원지방법원 2020.06.24 2020가단2997