logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.11.10 2019나3422
보증금반환 등
Text

The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.

The defendant shall use the building in the attached list from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”). - Lease deposit: 10,00,000 won - Rent: 1,200,000 won per month (excluding value-added tax, monthly advance payment): Term of lease: From April 1, 2017 to March 30, 2019 (2 years): Special agreement:

1. Real estate shall be leased in its present condition;

2. This lease contract shall take effect from the date of delivery of real estate from the present lessee of the above real estate;

B. On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 10,000,000 won as lease deposit to the Defendant, and received delivery of the instant building around April 30, 2017.

C. On May 2, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,052,52,520,000 to the Defendant on the date of the closing of argument in the instant court; KRW 1,320,00 on June 21, 2017; KRW 1,320,00 on July 14, 2017; and KRW 3,960,00 on October 20, 2017; and the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,052,520 on the aggregate of the management expenses for the month from April 2017 to July 2017, imposed on the instant building.

(However, 2,620 won of late July 2017 paid by the Defendant). 【No dispute over the ground for recognition”, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, Eul evidence No. 14 (including the number of branches), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not pay management expenses imposed on the instant building from January 2016 to April 2017, which was the date of the instant lease agreement, and that was the suspension of electricity and water measures were taken on the instant building around December 30, 2017.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the effect that the instant lease contract will be terminated, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract and removed from the instant building.

Therefore, since the lease contract of this case was terminated due to the defendant's fault, the plaintiff is limited to the defendant's default.

arrow