(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.26 2018가합501490

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.26 2018가합501490

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant's delivery of No. 501 of the fifth floor of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time, 250,000.

Reasons

1. On January 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 250 million (hereinafter “instant contract”) of KRW 501,00,000,000 from February 26, 2016 to February 25, 2018 (hereinafter “instant contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment amount of KRW 25,000,000,000 on the same day, and on February 25, 2016, and

2. The remaining lease deposit amount of KRW 225 million was paid over 26.26,00,000, and the defendant delivered the above real estate to the plaintiff.

At the time of the conclusion of the aforementioned lease agreement, the instant real estate was set up four billion won as a sum of the maximum debt amount, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined that “The lessor shall redeem and cancel the said maximum debt amount within six months from the remainder of the contract, and shall not interfere with the directors by paying the lessee’s director expenses and brokerage fees if the lessee fails to perform the contract.” However, the Defendant did not cancel the said right to collateral within six months from February 26, 2016, which is the remainder of the payment date.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-3 of evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant did not perform the obligation under Paragraph (2) of the terms of the contract of this case, and the fact that the plaintiff notified the defendant of the termination of the contract of this case by serving the copy of the complaint of this case on the ground of the above default is apparent in the record. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the contract of this case was terminated by the notice of termination. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff KRW 250 million at the same time as the transfer of the real estate of this case from

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2018.04.26 2016가합23612

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.08.25 2015가합338

-서울서부지방법원 2018.07.04 2017가합35359

-수원지방법원 2017.01.05 2016가단33062

-서울동부지방법원 2017.04.12 2016가단13476