(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.06.09 2014가단228880

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) 부산지방법원 2015.06.09 2014가단228880

임대차보증금

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays KRW 725,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

Reasons

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the building specified in the Disposition No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant as one million won, monthly rent of KRW 110,000,000, and the period from September 23, 2013 to 24 months.

B. The Plaintiff was unable to use the instant building due to the leakage of the instant building, and around December 8, 2013, declared that the instant lease contract was terminated due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of the repair obligation, and around that time, the said declaration of intent reached the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the evidence, evidence, evidence evidence No. 2, and the purport of the entire film and oral argument prior to the judgment on the claim of this lawsuit, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff incurred water leakage in the building in this case, and that the Plaintiff demanded repair works from the Defendant, but did not take any measures. In general, it is difficult to view that the leakage phenomenon of the building in this case was a minor to the extent that the lessee could easily raise water without any particular expense. In addition, in this case, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff could easily raise water without any particular expense, and that the leakage phenomenon of the building in this case constitutes a serious defect in the Plaintiff. The Defendant failed to perform repair obligation against the Plaintiff even though it was liable to repair the water leakage of the building in this case, and the lease contract in this case was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention of termination due to the Defendant’s non-performance of repair obligation on December 8, 2013.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is worth one million won as lease deposit to the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-대법원 2018.06.28 2014다200695

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.18 2014가단5338500

-전주지방법원 2014.12.18 2014나3743

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.06.16 2015가단14511

-서울북부지방법원 2015.11.24 2015가단112587