logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.07.11 2016가단45919
임대차보증금반환
Text

1. The defendant's delivery of the first floor of the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Building C from the plaintiff at the same time as the plaintiff 110,000.

Reasons

Around November 10, 2011, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit of KRW 110,00,000 to the Defendant for the first floor of the Seoul Gangdong-gu Seoul District Building to the Defendant as a house where the Plaintiff’s children D and the Defendant’s wife’s wife’s husband and wife’s wife’s wife’s wife’s wife E and his wife’s husband and wife’s wife’s wife’s husband and wife’s wife’s wife’s husband and wife’s husband’s wife’s wife’s wife’s residence. The Plaintiff’s failure to set the lease term at the time of the said lease agreement is either

Meanwhile, the fact that the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the above lease agreement, was served on the Defendant on December 1, 2016 is clearly indicated in the record.

According to the aforementioned facts and the provisions related to the Housing Lease Protection Act (Articles 4, 6, and 6-2), while the aforementioned lease agreement was explicitly renewed and continued on two occasions on November 10, 2013 and November 10, 2015, it was terminated on March 2, 2017 after three months from December 1, 2016, when the Plaintiff, a lessee, was notified of termination.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the Defendant, a lessor, is obligated to return KRW 110,000,000 to the Plaintiff, a lessee, barring special circumstances.

As to this, the defendant's defense of simultaneous performance, the fact that the plaintiff resides in the above leased object is no dispute between the parties, and if so, the above leased object is not delivered to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's defense is justified.

Ultimately, the Defendant, a lessor, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000,00 to the Plaintiff at the same time as the delivery of the leased object from the Plaintiff, who is the lessee. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is justified only within this scope, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no justifiable reason.

arrow