(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.07 2017가단26177

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 2018.06.07 2017가단26177

임대보증금

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time. 3,00,000 won shall be applied to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On October 6, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease of KRW 30 million with respect to the real estate listed in the order of Paragraph (1) (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and for the lease of KRW 2 years with respect to the lessor, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to return at the time of termination of the lease by including the expenses of KRW 3 million incurred by the Plaintiff for the repair of the instant real estate in the lease deposit. The fact that the said lease agreement has been implicitly renewed is not disputed between the parties, and the fact that the original copy of the payment order of this case, which contains the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the instant lease, reaches the Defendant on July 5, 2017, is evident in the record, and thus, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the lapse of 3 months from the date pursuant to Article 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the defendant is liable to refund the rental deposit to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First, the defendant asserts that he is not a lessor because he is not the owner of the real estate of this case, but the owner is not a lessor. However, the lease contract of this case (Evidence A1) is not necessarily a lessor, and the defendant is specified as a lessor. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Next, the defendant argued to the effect that the plaintiff should restore the real estate of this case due to the plaintiff's negligence of management, etc., but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Finally, the defendant's defense of simultaneous performance is examined. Since the defendant's obligation to return the deposit and the plaintiff's obligation to return the leased deposit are related to simultaneous performance, the defendant's above assertion is with merit.

3. Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 33 million to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법 제6조의2

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.02.16 2015가합5666

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.02.22 2018가단261

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.05.15 2017가단5309

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.16 2017가단5100584

-대전지방법원 2018.11.06 2018가단4069