(영문) 수원고등법원 2020.11.04 2019나19456

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) 수원고등법원 2020.11.04 2019나19456

보증금반환

Text

The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.

The Defendants are jointly listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants’ nonperformance of the instant lease agreement, restitution, and damages claim 1) due to the Defendants’ nonperformance (i) agreed to cancel the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over each of the instant real property of KRW 240 million until the remainder payment of the Plaintiff’s lease deposit. Nevertheless, the Defendants failed to perform such obligation (non-performance of the obligation to cancel the mortgage). (ii) The Defendants were liable to repair the leased property as the lessor of each of the instant real property. Despite the fact that there was a defect in water leakage, fungi generation, and water shortage due to water supply, the Defendants did not repair the instant building. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was unable to achieve the purpose of the lease agreement because it was impossible for the Plaintiff to conduct a pent construction business (non-performance of the obligation to repair the building of this case). (2) The Plaintiff terminated the lease agreement of this case, and (1) the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of the obligation to reinstate the pertinent claim for damages by delivery of a duplicate copy of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff the deposit amount of the instant lease agreement at the same time with the delivery of each of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

② Due to the Defendants’ nonperformance of their duty to repair the instant building, the Plaintiff was unable to conduct pension business in each of the instant real estate.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly carried out pension business from each real estate of this case to the Plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.08 2014가단17811

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.12.06 2017가단51764

-서울남부지방법원 2015.09.18 2014가합111703

-서울남부지방법원 2016.05.12 2014가합7033

-서울중앙지방법원 2012.07.19 2011가단462827