logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.09.08 2015가단6831
임차보증금 반환
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1 to 5, Gap evidence 5-1, 5-2, and Eul evidence 2, and there is no counter-proof.

As of May 24, 2005, the lease contract was made between Nonparty D (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the Defendant and Nonparty E (hereinafter “Defendant et al.”) with respect to KRW 20,000 of the first floor office (hereinafter “instant building”) indicated in the separate sheet (registration of destruction on May 16, 2012), in which the Defendant et al. shared 1/2 shares, among the buildings listed in the separate sheet (registration of destruction on May 16, 2012).

B. The deceased died on Nov. 21, 2007. The non-party F and G, a child, received a report of renunciation of inheritance on Jan. 29, 2008 from the Chuncheon District Court 2008Radan83, and the non-party H and I, a parent of the deceased, received the report of renunciation of inheritance on Apr. 25, 2008 and succeeded to the deceased.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiffs asserted 1) The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant et al. leased the building of this case from the defendant et al. to the non-party J around October 2004, monthly rent of KRW 700,000, and the lease term from May 24, 2005 to September 16, 2006. The above lease term was implicitly renewed. Since the defendant et al. leased the building of this case to the non-party J at will after the death of the deceased, the lease contract for the building of this case between the defendant et al. and the deceased was terminated, the defendant et al. claimed that the defendant et al. leased the building of this case to the non-party J around May 2004, the defendant et al. leased the building of this case to the non-party J as the lease deposit, and on May 2, 2005, the plaintiff et al. leased the building of this case with the qualification of the real estate agent of the non-party J as the lessee.

arrow