logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.06.20 2017가단10103
임대차보증금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,870,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 26, 2017 to June 20, 2018.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact-finding 1) On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff owned the 4th floor of the reinforced concrete structure (refinite) structure (refinite concrete roof) structure (refinite concrete structure) structure (refinite) structure (refinite) structure) structure (refinite structure) structure (refinite structure) structure) structure (refinite structure) structure) structure (refinite

) A deposit is KRW 50 million, KRW 500,000 for rent, KRW 100,000 for management expenses, and the period fixed on June 1, 2017 for lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) On March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 50 million won to D and E. (2) D and E sold the above 4th floor building on the condition that the Defendant takes over the lease deposit for the entire 4th floor on March 28, 2017, including the total amount of KRW 780 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 10, 2017.

3) Meanwhile, around March 7, 2017, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to refuse to renew the instant lease agreement to D and E, and on August 25, 2017, delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on August 25, 2017. 【Grounds for Recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the facts found above, the defendant succeeded to the lessor's status under the lease contract of this case, and since the lease contract of this case expires upon the expiration of the termination period, the defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 50 million to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that ① the sum of the rent, management fee, electricity, and water rate unpaid by the plaintiff at KRW 50 million should be deducted. ② The defendant asserts that the removal cost should be additionally deducted in the amount of KRW 7 million on the ground that the price of the removal cost should be additionally deducted because the do not remove the steel tower and the ceiling installed on the interior structure of the church and the outdoor tower installed on the instant real estate in the instant real estate were not removed.

B. There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff’s unpaid rent, management fee, electricity, and water rate is KRW 3,130,000,000.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's deduction.

arrow