logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.09.20 2015나42381
위약금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On October 4, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on November 4, 2012, the Plaintiff leased, from the Defendant, Young-gu Seoul apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”); (b) from November 5, 2012 to November 5, 2014, the deposit amount of KRW 140 million was set at KRW 100 million; and (c) around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 140 million to the Defendant.

On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intention to refuse the renewal of the above lease. At that time, the above notification was delivered to the Defendant. However, the Defendant, while intentionally avoiding the contact of the Plaintiff, did not refund the lease deposit even after the expiration of the above lease term, resulting in delay in the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit. As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred thereby.

B. The lessor’s duty to return the lease deposit and the lessee’s duty to deliver the leased object upon the termination of the judgment lease agreement are concurrently performed. According to the respective entries and the purport of the whole pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant. The Defendant asserted that the obligation to deliver the leased object in the simultaneous performance relationship was not fulfilled, and the above defense was accepted, and each Plaintiff and the Defendant rendered a judgment that the Defendant simultaneously performed the obligation to deliver the leased object and the obligation to return the lease deposit. After which the Defendant deposited the leased deposit on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to receive the lease deposit and received it, it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not cancel the lease registration that was completed on the apartment of this case, even if the Plaintiff delivered the apartment of this case to the Defendant, in light of the above facts, it is insufficient to view that the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit was delayed due to delay

arrow