logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2020.06.25 2019나52185
계약금반환등
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. Facts of recognition;

A. E leased a restaurant from the Defendant during the Namyang-si City and the first floor restaurant of the Ddong building (hereinafter “instant building”) from October 15, 2016 to October 14, 2018 and operated the restaurant.

B. On October 13, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant stipulating that the instant building shall be KRW 20 million per month (payment date: October 13, 2018) and KRW 1.6 million per month for the lease term, and the lessee shall deliver the said real estate to the lessee by October 31, 2018 in a state where it can be used for the lease purpose; the lease term shall be from the delivery date to October 30, 2019 (12 months).

C. On October 13, 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 10 million, out of KRW 20 million, to the Defendant to pay the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, and to pay the remainder of KRW 10 million on October 15, 2018.

On October 14, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the remainder KRW 10 million to the Defendant in advance, and demanded E and the Defendant to immediately deliver the instant building. However, as E and the Defendant refused this, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother demanded the Defendant to return the deposit under the instant lease agreement to the Defendant.

E. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant returned KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, including KRW 10 million on October 14, 2018, and KRW 10 million on October 22, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 2 million to the former lessee E as the down payment of the instant lease agreement at the Defendant’s request, and additionally paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff as the deposit money for lease.

However, since the lease contract of this case was cancelled, the defendant paid to the plaintiff 2.

arrow