logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2020.03.04 2019가단7518
임대차보증금 반환
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 37,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. On June 13, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with C, setting the deposit amount of KRW 160,00,000, and the period from June 25, 2015 to June 24, 2017 with respect to the D Building E (hereinafter “instant housing”).

C received the instant house from the Defendant around June 25, 2015, but failed to pay KRW 80,000,000, out of the agreed deposit, to the Defendant.

C agreed to pay the monthly rent of KRW 250,000 to the defendant.

An unmarried C died on March 6, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and F, the father of the deceased, renounced inheritance, and the Plaintiff, the mother of the deceased, succeeded to the property of the deceased.

On June 19, 2019, the Plaintiff returned KRW 25,000,000 from the Defendant’s deposit to the Defendant, and received additional KRW 6,00,000 from the Defendant on October 24, 2019.

Until the Plaintiff delivers the instant house to the Defendant, the rent that the Deceased did not pay to the Defendant is KRW 12,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4-1, 9, Eul 1, 2, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the instant lease was explicitly renewed after the expiration of the term, and that the Plaintiff was refunded part of the deposit from the Defendant, and that the agreement was terminated on June 19, 2019 when the instant house was delivered to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 37,00,000 (=12,000,000) that was not returned to the Plaintiff (=25,000,000) - refund deposit - refund deposit of KRW 6,00,000 - refund deposit of KRW 12,00,000).

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.

arrow