(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가단52189

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 2016.02.18 2015가단52189

임차보증금등

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay 25 million won to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from July 29, 2015 to February 18, 2016, and from the next day.

Reasons

1. The following facts are acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the claim, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the order to the plaintiff.

On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the Dong-gu C Housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) in Busan (hereinafter “instant housing”) by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million, and the lease period of KRW 25 million, and paid KRW 25 million to the Defendant around that time.

B. On May 2015, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that he would terminate the above lease agreement due to personal circumstances, etc. The Defendant also accepted this agreement and the said lease agreement was terminated on May 2015, when the Plaintiff delivered the instant house to the Defendant.

C. The Defendant has not yet paid 25 million won to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay brokerage fees necessary for seeking a new lessee, as the Plaintiff did not fully fulfill the two-year rental period stipulated in the instant lease agreement. However, there is no evidence to deem that the contract of this case requires brokerage fees in concluding the instant lease agreement, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay brokerage fees in light of the fact that the contract of this case appears to have been terminated by May 2015 between the parties.

B. Although the Defendant is not obligated to return the foregoing deposit until a new lessee on the instant house occurs, the said lease contract is terminated on or around May 2015, and the Plaintiff appears to have had a sufficient period of time for nine months since it delivered the instant house to the Defendant.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2014.12.26.선고 2014가단13586 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2017.01.10 2015나7822

-부산지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가단54734

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.06.09 2015가단202390

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.01.31 2018가단101389