(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.08.19 2015가합3978

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) 광주지방법원 2016.08.19 2015가합3978

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 17, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant with the term of March 17, 2003, wherein the lease deposit amount of KRW 300,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 5,000,000, and the term of lease from March 28, 2003 to June 28, 2004 (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”). The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the deposit amount of KRW 300,000,000,000, and provided accommodation at the instant Moel.

B. However, on April 28, 2005, the voluntary decision on the commencement of auction (the Gwangju District Court E; hereinafter “instant voluntary auction”) was made on April 28, 2005, and was sold to F on June 15, 2006 at the auction procedure.

C. On August 25, 2005, the Plaintiff demanded the distribution of KRW 300,000,000 for the lease deposit during the instant voluntary auction procedure. Around August 8, 2006, the Plaintiff delivered the instant cartel to F, but did not receive any distribution on the grounds that it was a junior creditor, on the date of distribution implemented on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, and 4 (real estate lease contract, the result of the commission to send documents to the head of Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City G Dong in Gwangju Metropolitan City, and the purport of the entire argument, the following stamp image of the defendant's name is recognized as being the seal of the defendant, and the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to have been established) and the purport

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the lease contract of this case was terminated due to the Defendant’s impossibility of performing the obligation to lease on or around August 8, 2006, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.

3. The defendant's defense asserts that the plaintiff's claim to return the lease deposit should be extinguished by the completion of commercial extinctive prescription, and even if not, the unpaid rent of KRW 248,00,000 should be deducted.

For the purpose of conducting accommodation business, this shall not apply.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2016.07.07 2015나4702

-청주지방법원 2016.08.19 2015나1476

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.10.14 2015가합102759

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2015.05.26 2014가단9915

-창원지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가합53814