logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.11.06 2018나68
손해배상
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are all dismissed.

2. Demanding and expanding the costs of appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 2011, the Defendant leased C Apartment 1209, 1902 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the Plaintiff as the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million, and KRW 1 million from February 25, 2011 to February 24, 2013, and paid KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff on February 25, 201.

B. On March 1, 2013, after the expiration of the above lease term, the Defendant was a director in the instant apartment on March 1, 2013. The Plaintiff returned only the remainder of KRW 38 million after deducting KRW 2 million from the above lease deposit amount.

C. Meanwhile, on March 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) placed directors on the instant apartment, but did not refund the full deposit money from the Plaintiff; (b) did not return the key to the entrance door of the instant apartment to the Defendant; and (c) the Plaintiff replaced the key to the entrance door of the instant apartment on March 13, 2013 without receiving the said key from the Defendant.

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement of KRW 2 million out of the lease deposit (Seoul Northern District Court 2017Dada52525), and the said court rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant who filed the said lawsuit on November 9, 2017.

The plaintiff who lost in the above lawsuit filed an appeal, and the above appellate court (Seoul Northern District Court 2017Na40489) rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on August 16, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 10, each entry of Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the term of lease on the instant apartment expires, the Defendant gains by unfairly continuing possession of the said apartment since March 1, 2013, whereas the Plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 2,400,00, which is equivalent to the Plaintiff’s profits. 2) The Defendant leased and used the instant apartment, destroyed the equipment of the living room, etc. while occupying and using it.

arrow