(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.11.16 2018가단232199

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.11.16 2018가단232199

임대차보증금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract with respect to 401, Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building 401 (hereinafter “instant housing”) owned by the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 200 million and the lease term from October 19, 2015 to October 18, 2017, and agreed to extend the contract for one year after the expiration of the lease period.

B. On March 24, 2018, the Plaintiff made a verbal notification to the Defendant to the effect that the instant lease contract will be cancelled, as water leakage was produced at the entrance of a bath room and the entrance floor of a bath room, and fung, malodor, etc., of this case.

C. On May 28, 2018, the Plaintiff again delivered the instant house to the Defendant by June 24, 2018, and thus, notified the Defendant of the refund of the lease deposit with the content certification.

On June 21, 2018, the Plaintiff, upon the cancellation of the instant lease agreement, demanded that the instant housing be transferred by July 10, 2018, and simultaneously refund the lease deposit. At the same time, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that if the lease deposit is not returned within the given period, the damage, such as the loan interest and the redemption fee, may occur, by receiving the loan from the financial institution.

E. On August 24, 2018, the Defendant returned the instant lease deposit KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant housing from the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff’s notification of cancellation on March 24, 208 was immediately or implicitly renewed; and (b) the Defendant did not return the deposit despite the cancellation of the instant lease on June 25, 2018; and (c) even if the Plaintiff’s date was set on August 24, 2018, the Defendant did not pay in advance the deposit amount equivalent to 10% of the deposit that the Defendant would normally pay according to customary practice; and (d) on the same day, the lease deposit.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.05.23 2019가합12292

-부산지방법원 2020.05.15 2019가단340839

-창원지방법원마산지원 2020.07.29 2020가단102351

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2019.09.18 2019가단222

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.07 2019가단4678