logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.04.06 2015나8534
월임대료등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant, stating that “The lease period: from June 1, 2012 to June 1, 2013, the deposit amount: KRW 10 million; and the rent: KRW 400,000 per month (in the event of the extension of the contract, KRW 10,000,000)” (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Defendant paid KRW 400,000 per month to the Plaintiff during the said lease period, and agreed on June 2013 to extend the lease period with the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 500,000 per month to the Plaintiff as the rent from June 2013 to February 2014.

C. On May 20, 2014, the Defendant awarded a contract for the removal of the instant real estate to D and demanded the Plaintiff to return the deposit upon the expiration of the lease period from the beginning of June 2014 after completing the construction. However, the Plaintiff did not return the deposit to the Defendant on the ground that the restoration of the instant real estate was not properly performed.

Accordingly, on June 5, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as Busan District Court Decision 2014Gada83548, the Plaintiff filed a written answer to the effect that “The Plaintiff may not refund the deposit to the Defendant on June 2, 2014, since the restoration to the original state was not made properly, and the settlement of unpaid public charges and rents was not completed.”

However, on July 23, 2014, the instant lawsuit was concluded with the mediation that “the Plaintiff shall pay 8.9 million won to the Defendant by August 23, 2014, and pay the Plaintiff expenses, such as expenses for restoration to the original state, transportation charges, etc.” (hereinafter “instant mediation”).

E. On August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 7,289,190 to the account designated by the Defendant, and the Defendant seizes the Plaintiff’s claims against the third obligor.

arrow