logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.06.26 2019가단273739
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

The Plaintiff asserted as stated in the grounds of the instant claim. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the lease deposit of this case between D and the Defendant was KRW 30 million, not KRW 30 million, and that the lease deposit of this case was overdue in the amount of KRW 30 million, the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case was entirely extinguished.

In a lease agreement, a security deposit for lease is to secure all the obligations of a lessee arising from the lease agreement until the time when the lease is ordered to the lessor after the termination of the lease agreement. The amount equivalent to the secured obligation is to be naturally deducted from the security deposit, barring any special circumstance, when the object is returned after the termination of the lease agreement. Thus, the lessor is obligated to return only the remainder after deducting the secured obligation from the security deposit to the lessee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da8323, 8330, Sept. 28, 2005). Even in cases where an assignment order was issued with the security deposit for lease as the whole claim, the lessor, the third obligor, can oppose the entire obligee with the grounds against which the lessee may oppose the lessee.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1315 delivered on January 19, 198). Meanwhile, even if a lessor and a lessee have agreed explicitly or implicitly with respect to the renewal or extension of the term of the lease contract, the effect of the agreement cannot be extended to the assignee of the claim to return the deposit, even if the lessor and the lessee have received the notification of the transfer of the claim to return the deposit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253, 4260 Decided April 25, 1989). Comprehensively taking account of the following facts, D’s descriptions, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, and 4-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 4-1 and 4-2, the real estate of this case owned by the Defendant from the Defendant was leased from January 31, 2014 as the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 5,400,000, monthly rent of KRW 5,540,000, and period of lease of KRW 12 months from January 31, 2014.

arrow