(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2019.09.25 2019가단11048

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) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2019.09.25 2019가단11048

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 60,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 60 million, and from November 20, 2015 to November 19, 2016, with respect to the building D (hereinafter “instant housing”) owned by the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff continuously demanded the Defendant to return the lease deposit from the time when the term of the instant lease agreement expires, but the Defendant continued to return the deposit due to insufficient funds.

C. On January 25, 2019, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff acquire the ownership of the instant house in lieu of the return of the said lease deposit and then take over the said collateral obligation. However, the Plaintiff rejected this.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 14, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on November 19, 2016, which is the last day of the agreed lease term.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above lease deposit to the plaintiff KRW 60 million.

On the other hand, the plaintiff also sought damages for delay against the defendant for the lease deposit.

The duty to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff, who is the lessor, as the lessee of the defendant, and the duty to deliver the leased object to the plaintiff to the defendant at the same time. Thus, the defendant is liable for the obligation to deliver the leased object after the plaintiff received performance or performance from the plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff fulfilled the duty to deliver the instant house, which is the leased object, to the Defendant.

The plaintiff's claim for this portion is not accepted, since there is no evidence of assertion as to the fact that the plaintiff offered performance or offered performance.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2019.11.05 2019가단8891

-서울북부지방법원 2020.11.26 2020가합26489

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.16 2014가합24124

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.08.22 2018가단4248

-인천지방법원 2021.01.26 2020가단254548