(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.07.05 2018가단19576

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) 의정부지방법원 2019.07.05 2018가단19576

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant: KRW 35,738,710 for the Plaintiff and KRW 15% per annum from December 15, 2018 to May 31, 2019; and

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 10, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the 191.88 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of a restaurant store located in Seocheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant real estate”), whereby the lease deposit was concluded between KRW 60,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000 (payment on the last day of each month), and the term of the contract was from November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid all the lease deposit to the Defendant.

B. On November 4, 2016, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the termination of the lease contract by oral means 20 days prior to the expiration of the lease term as of October 31, 2016. However, the Plaintiff did not receive a refund of the lease deposit up to 20 days, and sent a notice of termination of the lease contract to the Defendant at that time by notifying the termination of the lease contract and demanding the return of the lease deposit.

However, the defendant did not refund the lease deposit, and accordingly the plaintiff continued to use the real estate of this case.

C. On September 28, 2018, the Plaintiff removed from the instant real estate, and filed the instant lawsuit seeking the return of deposit for lease on the same day, and the duplicate of the complaint reached the Defendant on October 5, 2018.

On the other hand, the real estate of this case has no key separately, and the plaintiff has opened the door door and entered it through the back door.

The Defendant entered the instant real estate and inspected the status of real estate after the Plaintiff removed, and submitted as evidence the photographs taken on October 17, 2018.

(1), (2, 3, 4). (e) No. 2

In the process of the instant case, the Defendant was at issue that the instant real estate was damaged.

Accordingly, on December 14, 2018, the Plaintiff carried out the repair work for the part pointed out by the Defendant before the second mediation date, and submitted as evidence the photographs of the restored condition.

(A) evidence Nos. 3 through 8). (f) of this case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.09.05 2019나60585

-서울서부지방법원 2018.12.13 2018나39086

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2018.09.18 2018가단1981

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.09.08 2014가단51222

-서울남부지방법원 2015.07.16 2015나52379