(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.04.26 2015가단38988

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) 인천지방법원 2016.04.26 2015가단38988

임차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 63,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 5, 2015 to April 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 22, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff for the lessee, the Defendant, the lessor, the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,00,000, and the contract term from August 31, 2011 to August 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 60,000,000 as the lease deposit on August 31, 201.

B. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed because both the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not express any particular intent, and thereafter, the lessor requested the Defendant to increase the lease deposit and the Plaintiff additionally paid KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant around October 2013.

C. On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail claiming the termination of the instant lease agreement and the return of the deposit, and the Defendant received the content-certified mail around that time.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the lessor paid KRW 63 million to the Defendant, who is the lessor, and left the instant house on March 31, 2015 while he leased and resided in the instant house, and expressed his intention to terminate the instant lease agreement on March 31, 2015.

Therefore, since the lease contract of this case was terminated at the expiration of three months from the date of termination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 63 million and delay damages.

B. While the Plaintiff used the instant house, the summary of the Defendant’s assertion seems to be KRW 1.3 million for the repair cost of the instant house, KRW 1.3 million for the repair cost of the 1.3 million for the instant house, KRW 2.50,000 for the toilet repair cost, KRW 2.50,00 for the toilet replacement cost, KRW 550,00 for the painting replacement cost, KRW 550,000

cost of KRW 3.90,00, KRW 3.50,000, KRW 500,000.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.02.09 2017가단15587

-인천지방법원 2016.09.28 2016나6385

-대구지방법원 2019.05.29 2018나317681

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.03.27 2017가단56822

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.27 2020가단5138305