logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.01.15 2019가합15376
임대차보증금
Text

1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, KRW 230,000,000 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, 2, and 3 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on March 24, 2016 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) with the period of April 30, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant lease”), and paid the said deposit to the Defendant and used the instant apartment after being delivered the instant apartment, and there is no counter-proof. Thus, the instant lease is terminated upon the expiration of the term of validity, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant apartment from the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff KRW 230,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendant implicitly renewed the lease of this case, and the Plaintiff was residing in the apartment of this case, and filed a lawsuit, and the Plaintiff could not seek a new lessee due to his knowledge of the house, and thus, claimed that there was no obligation to return the deposit.

According to the evidence No. 3, the plaintiff expressed his intention to refuse the renewal against the defendant one month prior to the expiration of the lease term of this case. Thus, the defendant's implied renewal assertion is without merit, and the plaintiff claims the return of the deposit due to the delivery and repayment of the apartment of this case. Thus, the non-delivery defense of the object is without merit, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff shows his house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house's house'

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow