logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.07.14 2015가단75301
계약금반환 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,000,000 as well as annual 5% from May 13, 2015 to July 14, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with D Real Estate Real Estate Agent Office, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 340 million in Changwon-si E and 101 Dong 304 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from March 9, 2015 to March 9, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C took the Defendant’s seal and identification card, affixed the Defendant’s seal on the instant lease agreement, and attached a copy of his identification card to the Defendant and C.

The main contents of the instant lease agreement are as follows.

Article 1 of the Terms and Conditions of Contract: (a) KRW 340 million, the down payment of KRW 30 million, the down payment of KRW 50 million, the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million, on February 25, 2015; and (b) KRW 260 million, the remainder payment of KRW 260 million, before the lessee pays the intermediate payment to the lessor on March 9, 2015; and (c) the lessor is entitled to reimburse the down payment and the lessee waives the down payment and cancel the instant lease.

Article 7 (Non-performance of Obligations and Compensation for Damages) Where a lessor or lessee has defaulted on the terms and conditions of this contract, the other party may give written peremptory notice to the person who has defaulted, and rescind the contract.

In such cases, the parties to the contract may claim against each other for damages arising from the cancellation of contract, and the contract deposit shall be based on the compensation for damages, unless otherwise agreed.

B. The Plaintiff, around 19:30 on the same day, remitted the down payment of KRW 30 million to the Defendant account.

C. The Plaintiff’s side confirms that each address on his identification card attached to the Defendant immediately after the formation of the above lease agreement differs from each other, and then, in relation to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement with the Defendant, the denying party, who did not attend at the time of the formation of the contract, the Plaintiff’s phone called to the Defendant and the following day at nine hours.

arrow