(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.17 2016가단69711

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.17 2016가단69711

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 85,00,000 to the Plaintiffs, as well as 5% per annum from November 1, 2014 to August 29, 2017, respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiffs entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant to lease part of the space among the DweS Holdings located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “SweS Holdings”), and jointly operate DweS and beauty rooms. On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Defendant, who leased and operated the said DweS Holdings, on the following terms and conditions, and paid KRW 60 million on the date of the contract, and KRW 40 million on the sum of the DweS supply-related collaborative companies (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Defendant, at the time, agreed to set up a collateral security agreement on the E real estate owned by the owner of the said NweS Holdings, the owner of the instant securities (Seoul Seomun-gu, G hotel in Seoul, and hereinafter “instant hotel”), and the Defendant’s joint and several surety and the Defendant’s obligation under the instant contract were jointly and severally guaranteed:

The purpose of a contract: The contract security deposit from October 29, 2014 to October 28, 2017: 350,000 won (the contract deposit KRW 100,000,000) (the balance KRW 250,000,000) shall be notified to the plaintiffs if the defendant is unable to continue his/her business, and the deposit shall be immediately refunded.

B. However, the hotel of this case had already been at auction and could not be offered as security. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to cancel the contract of this case, and the defendant returned 15 million won out of the down payment to the plaintiffs around October 15, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, 5 to 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the fact of the above recognition, the instant contract was rescinded before October 15, 2016.

As such, the defendant is obligated to pay the duty to restore after cancellation to the plaintiffs an amount of KRW 85 million remaining after returning the down payment and delay damages.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.28 2020나64936

-서울동부지방법원 2020.05.22 2018가합115182

-서울동부지방법원 2019.06.05 2018나27951

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.07.09 2014가합1505

-부산지방법원 2020.05.27 2019가합47335