(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.13 2014가합538159 (1)

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.13 2014가합538159 (1)

임대차보증금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,646,540 as well as 20% per annum from July 20, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Under the underlying facts, the following facts may be acknowledged by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 7.

On March 19, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease (hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”) a deposit of KRW 650,000,000, and a term of lease of KRW 2 years from May 31, 2006, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

B. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, and on January 17, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the demand for the return of the deposit, as there was no intent to renew the lease agreement.

C. On June 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the order of lease registration with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Kao50708, and KRW 33,900 was required for the said application.

While the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment, the Plaintiff paid the long-term repair appropriations of KRW 2,612,640 on behalf of the Defendant, a sectional owner.

2. According to the above facts of determination, the lease contract of this case was terminated on or around February 18, 2014 by the plaintiff's notification of the plaintiff's intention to refuse to renew the lease contract. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 20, 2014 to the day of complete payment, as the plaintiff seeks with respect to ① 650,000,000 won for the above lease deposit, ② 33,900 won for application for the above lease registration order, ③ long-term repair appropriations 2,612,640 won for long-term repair appropriations, and each of the above amounts.

3. The reason for the additional judgment was that the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for the payment of the lease deposit, ② the application cost for the order of lease registration, ③ the long-term repair appropriations, but omitted the judgment on the claim under the above (2) and (3).

Therefore, it is decided in accordance with Article 212 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제212조 제1항

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2014.11.28 2014가단3219

-서울남부지방법원 2015.08.13 2015나1906

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.06 2014가합538159

-서울서부지방법원 2019.11.27 2019가단12704

-수원지방법원평택지원 2020.05.14 2019가합12338