(영문) 청주지방법원 제천지원 2018.07.25 2018가단20503

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 제천지원 2018.07.25 2018가단20503

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 75,00,000 won to the plaintiff at the same time as the delivery of the building stated in the attached Table 1 from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The description of the grounds for the claim is as shown in attached Form 2;

2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by public notice) of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. In addition to claiming the return of KRW 75,00,000,000 against the Defendant, a lessor of the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff partly dismissed part claimed damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

Where both obligations are simultaneously performed in a bilateral contract, even if one of the parties’ obligations becomes due, it shall not be liable for the delay of performance until the other party’s obligation is performed, even if the other party’s obligation is performed. Such effect does not necessarily lead to the exercise of the right of defense for simultaneous performance by the claimant who is not liable for the delay of performance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da54604, 54611 delivered on March 13, 1998). The Plaintiff did not assert or prove any assertion as to the fact that there was a performance or a provision for performance with respect to the Plaintiff’s obligations for delivery of the instant apartment in the simultaneous performance relationship with the Defendant’s obligation for return of the lease deposit.

Rather, on the premise that the Plaintiff did not deliver the apartment of this case to the Defendant, the Plaintiff claimed that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit simultaneously with the delivery of the apartment of this case from the Plaintiff.”

Therefore, since the defendant's obligation to return the lease deposit was omitted due to delay, the defendant has no obligation to pay the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for delay damages is without merit.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제208조 제3항 제3호

참조판례

-대법원 1998. 3. 13. 선고 97다54604, 54611 판결

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 제천지원 2018.07.25 2018가단20404

-서울남부지방법원 2018.09.20 2018가단229018

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.02.04 2019가단4818

-서울동부지방법원 2019.11.15 2019가합1174

-청주지방법원 제천지원 2018.08.08 2017가단21936