(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2017.11.30 2017가단9080

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) 대전지방법원천안지원 2017.11.30 2017가단9080

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. On June 4, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Selected D (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) believed the Defendants’ horses that they would be well-grounded in the commercial buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) and paid the Defendants KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000 with respect to the instant commercial buildings owned by the Defendants from August 10, 2017 to August 9, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and paid the Defendants the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, premium of KRW 33,500,000.

However, unlike the Defendants’ horses, the Plaintiffs knew of the fact that he actually paid excessive security deposit and premium in comparison with the surrounding market prices without being well aware of the fact that he paid it. On August 31, 2017, the Plaintiffs notified the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of deception by the Defendants.

Therefore, the instant lease agreement was terminated on November 30, 2017 when three months elapsed since the lessor was notified pursuant to Article 10(5) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”).

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000 and premium of KRW 3,000,000 and the rent of KRW 193,530,00 for the unused period, out of the rent paid in advance by the plaintiffs.

2. As to the fact that the plaintiffs were to enter into the pertinent lease agreement by deception from the defendants, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, Article 10(5) of the Act provides that while a lease contract continues to exist under a lease contract without a fixed period due to implied renewal after the expiration of the lease contract, the termination of the lease contract shall be notified to the lessor and the termination thereof shall take effect on the date three months have elapsed thereafter.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조 제5항

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.07.20 2017가단27759

-대구지방법원 2021.04.22 2020나304275

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.11.17 2015가단10574

-광주지방법원 2019.05.02 2018나4181

-부산지방법원 2016.05.11 2016가단301321