(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.10.19 2017나1008 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2017.10.19 2017나1008

임차보증금반환

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 4,00,000 against the Plaintiff as to the Defendant and its related thereto, from August 10, 2015 to October 19, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 9, 2013, the Defendant leased three floors of the building located in Seongdong-gu, Changwon-si, Sungwon-si, and the date of preparation of the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on September 9, 2013, which set the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 250,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 250,000 from August 10, 2013 to August 9, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) was concluded.

On August 9, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant the lease deposit.

B. The Plaintiff used the leased object of this case from around that time, and delivered the leased object of this case to the Defendant around April 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the instant lease agreement has expired on August 9, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million and delay damages.

(A) The Plaintiff alleged that he/she notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease agreement on March 10, 2015. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a reason to terminate the lease agreement prior to the expiration of the contract period, or that there was a notification of such termination, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was a legitimate termination notification. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant agreed to the effect that he/she would return the deposit on April 10, 2015. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this).

The judgment of the defendant 1 on the plaintiff's assertion was prepared formally for the plaintiff's business registration. In fact, the plaintiff and the defendant jointly leased the third floor of the building of this case from the owner of the building, and the agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff is reached.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.05.13 2015나2023497

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.23 2017가합521923

-울산지방법원 2016.07.07 2014가합8529

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.12 2016가단150457

-광주지방법원 2017.08.30 2016가단528583