logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.12.24 2015가단232432
임대차보증금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 8, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 2nd floor (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant to reside in the lease deposit amounting to KRW 80 million, and agreed on the lease contract. On September 13, 2015, the Plaintiff handed over the instant building to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant returned each of the deposited money of KRW 6,00,000 to the Plaintiff on August 25, 2015, KRW 73,775,000 on September 23, 2015, and KRW 225,00 on September 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Defendant returned each deposit of KRW 73,775,00 on September 23, 2015 and KRW 225,00 on September 25, 2015; and (b) the Defendant has an obligation to pay interest of KRW 272,866, which was accrued from September 14, 2015 to September 23, 2015 from September 23, 2015 (i.e., interest of KRW 73,75,000 x 9/365 x 15/100) and interest of KRW 225,00 from September 14, 2015 to September 25, 2015 (i.e., KRW 25,000 x 1/365 x 1/365 x 103837).

3. The amount of the deposit is naturally deducted from the deposit, and the right to claim a return is created only on the balance, as it guarantees all obligations, such as overdue rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, which occurred between the time the object is transferred to the delivery, following the termination of the lease.

According to the above facts, on September 23, 2015, the Defendant returned KRW 73,775,000 to the deposit for lease from September 23, 2015, and delayed the implementation.

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 10 of Eul, the fact that the electricity charge that the plaintiff did not pay is KRW 10,000, KRW 15,000, and the cost of restoring the wall damaged by the plaintiff is about KRW 100,00, and the cost of restoring the wall to its original state is about KRW 100,000, and the cost of restoring the wall is about KRW 100,000, such as the above cost, must be naturally deducted from the lease deposit.

Therefore, the Defendant’s interest amounting to KRW 73,775,00 (=74,00,000-225,000) for the Plaintiff from September 14, 2015 to September 23, 2015 = 90,955 won =73,775,00 won x 9/365 x 5/100.

arrow