(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.15 2018나72673

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) 수원지방법원 2019.05.15 2018나72673

보증금반환

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On May 25, 201, the Plaintiff is a Pyeongtaek-si C and its ground factory owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant factory”) with the Defendant on May 25, 201.

(2) The term of lease is set up by June 30, 2014, the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million, monthly rent of KRW 670,000 (value-added tax) and the lease agreement to be leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 80,000 to the Defendant under the instant lease agreement, and paid KRW 7,370,000 per month (i.e., value-added tax of KRW 6,770,000 per month (including value-added tax) and paid KRW 8,250,00 per month for renewal of the lease agreement from July 2014 to June 2016. From July 2016, the Plaintiff increased and paid the rent to KRW 8,80,00 per month (including value-added tax).

3) On May 8, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the instant lease agreement. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the lease contract of this case was terminated due to the termination of the agreement, the defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million and the delay damages therefor, barring any special circumstance.

2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment on deduction

A. The main purport of the Defendant’s assertion is to deduct the amount equivalent to the expenses incurred in restitution from the lease deposit to be returned by the Defendant, as well as the amount equivalent to the rent that the Defendant incurred as a result of the lease of the instant plant for the necessary period of restitution, as well as the amount equivalent to the electricity and water tax paid by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff.

B. The reasoning for this part of the judgment regarding the claim of deduction equivalent to restitution costs falls under the judgment of the court of first instance.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.07.06 2017가단518096

-수원지방법원 2019.04.04 2018가단554655

-수원지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가합14194

-서울북부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가단26245

-인천지방법원 2016.05.13 2015나14464