(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.30 2016가합520121

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.30 2016가합520121

임대차보증금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 230,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 13, 2016 to September 30, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 350 million (it refers to the term of lease between December 20, 2013 and December 19, 2015) owned by the Defendant and resided in the said apartment.

B. On December 5, 2015, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 120 million out of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff on December 19, 2015, and the remainder of KRW 230 million shall be paid immediately after receiving the lease deposit from the next revenue, and the payment shall be made by adding interest of 10% per annum from December 20, 2015 to the completion date of repayment.

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). C.

On January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties’ assertion that the lease deposit that the Defendant did not return to the Plaintiff is KRW 230 million, and there is no dispute between the parties. However, as to this, the Plaintiff seeks payment of the amount calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from December 20, 2015 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint pursuant to the instant agreement, while the Defendant entered into the instant agreement on the condition that the Plaintiff did not register the right of lease on December 23, 2015, on the condition that the Plaintiff did not register the right of lease, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay interest pursuant to the said agreement.

Ultimately, the issue of this case is whether the agreement of 10% per annum claimed by the Plaintiff is applied to the lease deposit 230 million won to be returned by the Defendant, or only damages for delay at the statutory rate, as claimed by the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. If the written evidence Nos. 1 through 6 reveals the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant leased another apartment from the Plaintiff, which is the term of the instant lease.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원마산지원 2016.06.29 2015가합816

-서울고등법원 2016.06.30 2016나2015899

-대전지방법원 2015.04.15 2014가합4914

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.05.26 2019가단105328

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.18 2014가합62225