(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.10.11 2016가단224866

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 2016.10.11 2016가단224866

건물명도

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) received KRW 6 million from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) respectively at the same time.

Reasons

1. On April 26, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to the Defendants with a deposit of KRW 10 million and monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million. However, the Plaintiff received only a deposit of KRW 6 million from the Defendants and did not receive the remainder of KRW 4 million. Based on such fact, on May 26, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a document verifying the content that the instant lease agreement was terminated and sent to the Defendants on May 27, 2016, and the said document was served to the Defendants, and the Plaintiff can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in subparagraphs A through 3.

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the claim of main lawsuit, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated, the defendants are obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to each of the plaintiff.

(The above duty of delivery is quasi-joint and several liability. Accordingly, the defendants cannot deliver the real estate of this case until the security deposit is returned. Thus, the defendants' defense is justified since the lessee's obligation to return the leased object and the duty to return the deposit money of the lessor upon the termination of the lease contract in this case is a simultaneous performance relationship.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to deliver the instant real estate to each Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of deposit of KRW 6 million from the Plaintiff.

3. Since the instant lease contract was terminated as to the counterclaim claim, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 6 million to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the plaintiff may not refund the deposit amount of 6 million won until the delivery of the real estate of this case. Thus, as seen above, the plaintiff's obligation to return the deposit amount of 6 million won and the defendants' obligation to deliver the real estate of this case are concurrently performed. Thus, the plaintiff's defense is justified.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is simultaneously with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Defendants.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.10.13 2020가단1761

-전주지방법원 2017.11.22 2017가단20854

-대전지방법원 논산지원 2018.03.29 2017가단912

-수원지방법원안양지원 2017.08.23 2016가단116365

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.12.18 2014가단27541