logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단106923
임차보증금 반환 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,277,434 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 12, 2018 to May 16, 2019.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on April 1, 2015 to April 1, 2016, the period of KRW 45 million, and the rent of KRW 950,000,00 for multi-family house D (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter referred to as "the instant lease agreement". (b)

On March 2016, the Plaintiff, while extending the contract with the Defendant orally, agreed to deduct the rental deposit from the deposit for seven months from April 2016 to October 2016.

Accordingly, the deposit was KRW 38,350,000 (=45 million - 6650,000).

C. On February 21, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease agreement will be terminated, demanding the return of the lease deposit. D.

On April 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed for the registration of housing lease with the Changwon District Court 2018Kao16, which was a director around April 12, 2018.

At the time of directors, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the present official identification number.

E. On May 11, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 18.5 million to the Plaintiff after deducting KRW 198.5 million as the cost of restoring the original state.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant lease agreement was terminated upon the expiration of the term of validity, and the Defendant’s transfer of KRW 18.5 million to the Plaintiff on May 11, 2018 is preferentially appropriated for damages for delay (225,897 won) incurred from May 11, 2018 after the termination of the instant lease agreement, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining lease deposit amount of KRW 20,075,897 and damages for delay.

The part of the defendant's claim for restitution is merely a normal marina, and the plaintiff does not bear the duty of restoration.

arrow