logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2014.11.28 2014가단3219
임대차보증금
Text

1. As to KRW 571,917 and KRW 250,000 among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) from March 13, 2014 to March 13, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 18, 2010, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the term of lease for the “Bansung City C and 202” (hereinafter “instant leased object”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from December 17, 2010 to December 16, 2012; and the Plaintiff paid the said lease deposit to the Defendant three times from November 18, 2010 to December 31, 2010.

B. After that, the instant lease agreement was extended by implied renewal, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated the instant lease agreement on October 23, 2013.

C. Meanwhile, on January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff delivered the leased object of this case to the Defendant, and on March 12, 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 50 million with the Plaintiff with the deposit.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 3 evidence, Eul's 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 1 million to the Plaintiff at the time of termination of the instant lease agreement, but it is not sufficient to recognize the only statement in the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

B. On January 16, 2014, the Plaintiff received the order of lease registration on the object of the lease of this case (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Kaman-si4, the Sungwon-si), and completed the lease registration on January 21, 2014, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 250,000 in total with fees, delivery fees, and stamp for the application for the said order of lease registration. As such, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 250,00 in total can be recognized in full view of the purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 3 and No. 4.

arrow