logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.11.13 2019가단19198
임대차보증금
Text

The defendant delivered No. 2 D from the plaintiff Jung-gu, Seoul and the second floor of 1 parcel from the plaintiff, and at the same time, 200,000.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 3, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”) on the lease deposit amount of KRW 200,000,000, and the term of lease from November 18, 2017 to November 17, 2019 with respect to the second floor D (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The Deceased transferred the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 200,000,000 to the Deceased.

C. The Deceased died on July 30, 2018.

The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Seoul Family Court for the appointment of an administrator of inherited property for the Deceased as the Seoul Family Court 2020 Madan52271, and the above court appointed the Defendant as an administrator of inherited property for the Deceased on July 14, 2020.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the lease term, the defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 200,000,000 to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant's defense that the obligation to return the lease deposit of this case was related to the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the real estate of this case. Thus, since the return of the lease deposit is related to the simultaneous performance with the return of the leased object, the above defense of the defendant is justified.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 200,000,000 to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

arrow