(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.11.22 2018가단110272

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) 서울동부지방법원 2018.11.22 2018가단110272

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver the building indicated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time 80,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 25, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C as to the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) between February 28, 201 and February 7, 2013, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,00,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and reside until now after full payment of the lease deposit.

B. Since the instant building was unregistered, and the Plaintiff had been continuously residing in the instant building after making a move-in report, and the ownership was transferred to the Defendant on March 9, 2017, and the Defendant was verified as the de facto owner of the instant building, the Defendant is the de facto owner until now.

The Defendant, as the de facto owner of the instant building, succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant lease agreement.

C. On April 23, 2017, the Plaintiff continued to reside under the implied renewal of the instant lease agreement, and expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease agreement to the Defendant and to request the return of the deposit for lease. On two occasions, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content verification, and notified the Defendant that the instant lease agreement was terminated once by delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff's declaration of termination, the defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000 to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant responded to the purport that if the building was not constructed to repair the building on credit, the new lessee was sought, and then the plaintiff's deposit was returned. In light of this, the lease relationship terminated.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.10.30 2014가단80968

-의정부지방법원 2019.04.18 2018가단15574

-광주지방법원순천지원 2016.04.22 2015가단74187

-서울고등법원 2016.08.18 2015나2059915

-창원지방법원 2019.04.23 2016가단14228