(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가단22100

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) 대전지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가단22100

임차보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver the building indicated in the attached Form from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, KRW 40,000,000 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On June 9, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant for the attached building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 40,00,000 and the period from June 9, 2011 to June 9, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and paid the Defendant deposit of KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant during business, and the fact that the instant lease contract was renewed once more than once after and the expiration of the period on June 9, 2016 is not a dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit of KRW 40,000,000.

B. On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she handed over the instant building to the Defendant, and sought payment of KRW 40,000,000 from July 7, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date, for the lease deposit of KRW 40,00,000.

In the event of termination of a lease contract, the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit and the lessee’s obligation to deliver the leased object are related to the simultaneous performance. Thus, the Plaintiff seeking the repayment of damages for delay on the lease deposit must prove the performance of the duty to deliver the instant building, which is one’s own obligation, or the provision of performance. Rather, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and as seen later, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part is without merit, since it is recognized that the Plaintiff currently occupies the instant building.

2. Judgment on the defense

A. The defendant is obligated to restore the facilities installed by the former lessee at the time of termination of the lease to the original lessee and to collect the reading room books, chairs, etc. In light of the circumstances that the plaintiff succeeded to the part of the previous facilities from the former lessee who operated the reading room. Thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until the plaintiff performs the above obligation.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원서산지원 2016.07.01 2016가단50100

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.02.18 2019가단4771

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2018.05.31 2018가단301885

-수원지방법원 2018.04.03 2017가단545432