(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2019.10.24 2018가합6051

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) 청주지방법원충주지원 2019.10.24 2018가합6051

보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 142,50,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and the following: 6% per annum from December 11, 2018 to October 24, 2019.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. On December 5, 2017, the Plaintiff determined the cause of the claim based on the lease agreement dated December 5, 2017, as to the cause of the claim. The Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 101,80,000,00 from the Defendant for the lease of KRW 200 square meters, KRW 162 square meters, KRW 162 square meters, and KRW 90,000,00,00, and the said lease deposit was paid. The Defendant stored goods or garbage in the leased object; the Plaintiff was unable to use the leased object from around April 2018 due to the change of the entrance password and the card, or there is no dispute between the parties, and each entry (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); and the witness H’s testimony and the purport of the entire lease agreement can be acknowledged by taking into account the following reasons. The Plaintiff’s intention to terminate the lease agreement as a whole.

Therefore, the above lease contract was terminated by the delivery of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to refund the above lease deposit amount of KRW 101,800,000 to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff offsets the damage claim equivalent to KRW 132,665,280 due to the theft of the company I products of the above leased object against the plaintiff's claim for restitution of the lease deposit with the claim for restitution of the lease deposit.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant has a claim against the Plaintiff for restoration of the leased object. The evidence submitted by the Defendant, such as Eul 1, 4, and 6, is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant has the damage claim against the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff. There is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, in full view of the purport of the argument in Eul 6, the representative director of the Defendant, the J. of the Plaintiff, as a whole

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.12.06 2018가합51633

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.27 2016가합562606

-대전지방법원서산지원 2019.05.01 2018가단55680

-서울북부지방법원 2015.08.18 2015가단22899

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.03.23 2017가합2621