(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.11.26 2020가단2984

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) 청주지방법원 2020.11.26 2020가단2984

임대차보증금

Text

The defendant shall pay 80,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

A. On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000, and the period from October 12, 2015 to October 12, 2017 with respect to multi-family house C on the ground of the petitioner-owned district, which is owned by the Defendant, as of September 3, 2015.

B. On April 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a lease agreement with the term of lease up to October 12, 2019.

C. The above B.

After an implied renewal of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff continuously requested the Defendant to terminate the lease agreement and return the deposit by text message from November 2019, and notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease contract at his/her domicile by means of content-certified mail on January 28, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff, at least on January 28, 2020, declared that the lease contract which was explicitly renewed was terminated, and on April 29, 2020, the above lease contract terminated by the plaintiff's notice of termination (Article 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act). As to this, the defendant is obligated to pay 80,000,000 won to the plaintiff, and the defendant did not receive the notice of termination from the plaintiff. However, if the items proving the contents of the plaintiff's declaration of intent to terminate the lease contract are not sent to the defendant's domicile and are not returned differently, it shall be deemed that it was delivered at that time, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da20052, Oct. 27, 200). Further, since the plaintiff continuously delivered the contract to the defendant prior to the delivery of the content-certified mail, the defendant's assertion that the defendant received the text message cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법 제6조의2

참조판례

-대법원 2000. 10. 27. 선고 2000다20052 판결

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2020.11.12 2020가단25932

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2021.01.14 2020가단4221

-수원지방법원여주지원 2020.12.10 2020가단1754

-창원지방법원진주지원 2020.02.13 2019가단4676