(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.16 2013가합538411

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 2015.01.16 2013가합538411

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 543,91,79 for the Plaintiff and KRW 15% per annum from July 17, 2013 to January 16, 2015.

Reasons

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence 1 to 9 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence 5:

A. On September 16, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on the condition that the Plaintiff lease part of the part of the land B and that part of the building on its ground (hereinafter “the leased object of this case”) from September 17, 2008 to September 16, 2010, with the term of lease from September 17, 2008, the lease deposit amount of KRW 5635 million, the lease deposit amount of KRW 16,905,000 (excluding value-added tax) for the rent month (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”), and the rate of delay damages for the obligation to return the lease deposit was set at 15% per annum.

From that time, the leased object of this case was used.

B. On May 7, 2013, while the Plaintiff continued to use the leased object of this case upon implied renewal after the termination of the lease term under the above lease term, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that he would terminate the lease contract of this case as of July 1, 2013, and demanded the Defendant to return the leased object of this case to the Defendant on July 16, 2013, as the Plaintiff would return the same day deposit to the Defendant on June 24, 2013 and July 12, 2013.

C. On July 15, 2013, the Plaintiff removed from the leased object of this case, and subsequently, on July 16, 2013, intended to return the leased object of this case to the Defendant. However, the Defendant asserted the effect of termination of the lease contract of this case and rejected its receipt.

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the lease contract of this case is terminated according to the latter part of Article 639(1) and Article 635(1) of the Civil Act during the period in which the lease contract of this case continues by implied renewal under Article 639(1) of the Civil Act after the expiration of the term of lease. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s deposit 50 million won.

참조조문

-민법 제635조 제1항

-민법 제639조 제1항

유사 판례

-대법원 1967. 1. 24. 선고 66다2202 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.16 2014가단5288728

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.13 2016가단5105186

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.07.15 2020가단2337

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.10 2019가합586078