logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2019.06.12 2019가단101461
보증금반환
Text

1. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff KRW 120,000,000.

2. The Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the Defendants respectively.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant C is punished by Defendant B.

B. On November 25, 2016, Defendant C concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 120,000,000, and the term of lease from December 15, 2016 to December 15, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On October 15, 2016, the Plaintiff performed the obligation to pay KRW 15,00,000,000, out of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, instead of paying KRW 15,000,000, out of the lease deposit. On November 25, 2016 and December 15, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 105,000 to Defendant B on two occasions, thereby fulfilling the obligation to pay the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement.

On September 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that they did not wish to renew the term of the lease on or before the expiration of the term of the lease.

【Ground of recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the term of the instant lease contract expires, the Defendants are obligated to refund KRW 120,000,000 to each of the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff claimed for the repayment of the lease deposit from December 26, 2018, but the Defendants’ obligation to return the lease deposit and the Plaintiff’s obligation to deliver the instant real estate are concurrently performed. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Defendants, and it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ obligation to return the lease deposit is in a delayed state. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow