(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.06.12 2018나10195

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) 대구지방법원 2019.06.12 2018나10195

보증금반환

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff leased the lease deposit of the Daegu Dong-gu C Building D from the Defendant, KRW 2 million, KRW 250,000, KRW 2500,000 per month, and KRW 15,000,000 per month, and moved out on March 31, 2018.

(Reasons for recognition: The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 205,00,000,00,000,000,000,000, which is the overdue loan, which is paid by the plaintiff from KRW 2 million of the lease deposit to the plaintiff, after deducting the overdue loan (4 months), management expenses in arrears, 795,00 (53 months).

(2) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should pay the remainder of KRW 92,000 to the Plaintiff, since it was originally received KRW 2,092,00 from the Defendant, but among which it was decided to substitute the said lease deposit, the Plaintiff should pay the remainder of KRW 92,00 to the Plaintiff.

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, around March 2013, 2013, 1,800 won is less than 2,092,00 won claimed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

the supply of goods shall be deemed to have been supplied.

However, the lease contract (No. 1) on the above building states that "2 million won is replaced with the kick value," and it is read to the effect that the kin price itself is replaced with the kin price of 2 million won among the kin price and the remainder remains, rather than with the purport that it continues to exist, and that if the kin price itself is replaced with the kin price of kin price, the remainder 90,200 won (or 92,00 won) excluding the kin price of 2 million won among the kin price as the plaintiff's assertion, if the kin price is remaining, it is no more than five years from the date of the supply, claiming payment with the lawsuit in this case on April 14, 2018 over the past five years (the same shall apply when considering the short-term possibility of the extinctive prescription or the three-year short-term extinctive prescription period, it is difficult to view that the defendant still bears the obligation to pay the kin price separately other than the obligation to return.

Therefore, this part.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.11.23 2016가단53509

-서울고등법원 2017.08.30 2017나2019775

-대구지방법원서부지원 2019.01.10 2018가단57879

-서울동부지방법원 2017.08.30 2017가단2114

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.10 2014가단136617