logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.16 2013가단295472
임대차보증금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,100,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 8, 2013 to January 16, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 22, 2011, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D, an son’s son’s children, setting the rental deposit amount of KRW 180,00,000,000, and the last day of February 2012, 24 months from the date of February 2012.

B. On January 31, 2012, the Plaintiff provided the following services from the Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff paid 20 million won to the Defendant with the deposit; and (b) the Defendant returned the deposit to the Plaintiff at the time when the contract term expires; (c) the Plaintiff entered into a tax service agreement with the Defendant for one year from the date of the contract term of the instant letter or business (hereinafter “instant tax service agreement”); and (d) accordingly, the Plaintiff paid 20 million won to the Defendant an intermediate payment of KRW 3 million on January 31, 2012 and the intermediate payment of KRW 15 million on February 24, 2012, and paid 20 million to the Plaintiff at the expense of the Plaintiff.

C. From March 7, 2012, D commenced the instant friendship’s business. From April 11, 2012, the Plaintiff served as a shooting day in the instant friendship and provided a letter of credit service. Around that time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant re-written a contract that reduces the daily expenses under the instant letter of credit service contract from KRW 60,000 to KRW 50,000.

However, as a result of the occurrence of problems, such as the suspension of the supply of electricity to private friendship facilities due to the failure of D to pay public charges, etc. for the instant private friendship or operation, the instant private friendship’s business was suspended for about four months from August 20, 2012 to December 31, 2012, and the business was resumed again since January 2013.

E. On or before February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff’s new service contract of this case expires to the Defendant on or after March 6, 2013.

arrow