logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.06.22 2017나10964
보증금반환
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relevant Plaintiff is a corporation established pursuant to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation Act to build, supply, and manage housing, and the Defendant is the owner of Kim Jong-si B apartment 101 Dong 602 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. 1) On November 20, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract of lease on a deposit basis for the instant real estate between the Defendant and the lease contract for two years from November 23, 2006 to November 22, 2008 (hereinafter “the lease contract of lease on a deposit basis”).

(1) After entering into the contract, the Defendant is entitled to KRW 20 million (hereinafter “instant security deposit”).

(1) The registered lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “registration of lease on a deposit basis”) was made on November 22, 2008 by the Jeonju District Court, Kim Jong-dong Office, and by November 22, 2008, the registered lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “registration of lease on a deposit basis”) was made as of November 27, 206.

(2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff entered into a support housing contract with C on November 9, 2006, and C moved into the said real estate on or around the 23th of the same month following the move-in report on the said real estate.

C. 1) After the termination of the instant lease contract, C had changed the address around February 17, 2010, and had been removed from the instant real estate around that time. The Defendant was urged to repair the said real estate for repair on January 29, 201, under contact with the owners of the following floors that the Defendant suffered water leakage damage. (2) On December 28, 2011, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of the purport that the lease contract was terminated and the Plaintiff demanded the return of KRW 20,000,000,000 to the Defendant, and the said content certification reached the Defendant around that time.

3) On January 19, 2012, the Defendant returned KRW 18,158,500 out of the instant lease deposit to the Plaintiff. The registration of the establishment of the instant lease on a deposit basis was cancelled on January 25, 2012 (the fact that there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, and Party A.

arrow