(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2019.11.12 2019가단2065

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) 수원지방법원여주지원 2019.11.12 2019가단2065

보증금등반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic facts are: (a) on August 17, 2016, the Plaintiff leased a building D and the second floor (hereinafter “instant store”) from Echeon-si, Seoul (hereinafter “instant store”) with a deposit of KRW 20 million; (b) around that time, the Plaintiff operated the PC room from around that time.

Since then, the plaintiff decided to change the type of business as the time the store business was well known, and around September 2018, the defendant and the store of this case engaged in the restaurant business.

On September 12, 2018, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with C on a deposit of KRW 20 million with respect to the instant store, and agreed to substitute the deposit of KRW 20 million paid by the Plaintiff as stated in paragraph (a).

From that time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have operated the instant stores with the trade name “E”.

Around March 2019, the Defendant returned 11,255,000 won remaining after deducting the overdue rent and the electricity tax from C at KRW 20 million and delivered the instant store to C at the same time.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of the whole purport of the arguments and arguments by the facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings. ① The plaintiff was unable to conduct financial transactions due to Bophishing, and entered into a lease contract on the store of this

However, the defendant, without the plaintiff's consent, received the deposit amount of KRW 20 million from the lessor C, and the defendant must return the deposit to the plaintiff.

② The Plaintiff intended to recover KRW 80,000,000 as premium for the said store by exchanging the instant store with a multi-household located in the city of the Government.

However, the Defendant arbitrarily recovered the deposit amount of KRW 20 million from the lessor and delivered the said store to the lessor, thereby the Plaintiff lost the opportunity to recover the said premium.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million, half of which is KRW 80 million, to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

The claims for the refund of deposit are recognized earlier.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.08 2017가단118506

-부산지방법원 2018.04.13 2017나51167

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.24 2014가단5109634

-제주지방법원 2016.11.08 2016가단942

-대전지방법원 2018.05.18 2017나112858