(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2020.09.24 2020가단102887

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) 창원지방법원마산지원 2020.09.24 2020가단102887

보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 1,788,493 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from July 29, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 16, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million from April 5, 2017 to April 4, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and paid KRW 20 million on the date of the contract as the lease deposit, and KRW 60 million on April 5, 2017 to the Defendant.

B. At the time of termination of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the lease deposit, but the Defendant failed to provide money at the expiration of the contract term, and thus failed to refund the lease deposit, and the Plaintiff continued to reside in the instant house on May 13, 2020 while the Plaintiff did not have any director, and delivered the instant house to the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the return of the lease deposit, and this court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the content that the Plaintiff waives the remainder of the claim. As of July 17, 2020, the Plaintiff paid KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff by July 31, 2020, and paid the unpaid amount by adding 12% interest per annum to the Plaintiff at the rate of 12% per annum from the day following the date of the above payment to the day of full payment.

The defendant tried to pay KRW 80 million to the plaintiff according to the above decision of recommending reconciliation, but the plaintiff refused to receive it and deposited KRW 80 million with the plaintiff as the principal deposit on July 28, 2020.

E. On July 29, 2020, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the said decision of recommending reconciliation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the lease contract of this case was terminated by the expiration date, the defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the deposit amount of the creditor against the creditor is very low compared to the total amount of the debt.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.09.07 2016나4585

-인천지방법원부천지원 2020.10.16 2020가단107201

-대구지방법원 2015.03.06 2014가단43288

-수원지방법원 2016.05.26 2016가단10502

-서울남부지방법원 2018.01.25 2017가단229219