(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.04 2017가단230288

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.04 2017가단230288

보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant paid KRW 59,280,00 to the Plaintiff KRW 50% per annum from July 26, 2017 to May 4, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) stipulating the lease deposit of KRW 60 million with respect to the size of 301 square meters of the 3rd floor C, and the term of lease from June 27, 2015 to June 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 4 million on the date of the contract, and paid KRW 56 million on June 27, 2015.

C. On May 25, 2017, prior to the expiration of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she did not wish to renew the contract, and delivered the instant house to the Defendant on June 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the lease deposit amount of KRW 60 million to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment 1) asserts that the above amount should be deducted from the deposit for lease because the room of the instant house, the ridge and the ridge are damaged and the repair cost is required. Even if the leased object was partially damaged in the lease contract, the economic assessment of the value damaged portion caused by the male of the leased object by the lessee using the leased object during the lease period is already reflected in the rent, etc. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the lessee should restore the lessee’s duty to restore the leased object as it is at the time when the leased object was delivered from the lessor, and where there are special circumstances, such as the damage of value exceeds the degree of natural paralysis or depreciation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da15104, Dec. 21, 199). In light of these legal principles, the lessee is obliged to pay the duty to restore the leased property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da15104, Dec. 21, 199>

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2020.07.03 2019나3545

-전주지방법원 2017.10.19 2016나12055

-부산지방법원 2020.07.15 2020나45155

-수원지방법원 2018.07.06 2017가단518096

-대구지방법원 2017.09.20 2017나7048