logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.12.12 2014나7108
임차보증금 반환
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the defendant on January 27, 2005, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 18,000,000 for the lease deposit against the non-party 1 land (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), and from January 3, 2005 to January 2, 2007 for the lease term of KRW 18,00,000 for the lease deposit, and thereafter, the lease of this case was explicitly renewed and the plaintiff notified the termination of the lease of this case by delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case. However, there is no evidence to support this.

Provided, That if a lessor or tenant fails to express his/her intention to refuse the renewal before the lease term expires, the lease contract shall be implied renewal in the same condition as the former one. In such cases, the lessee may notify the lessor of the termination of the contract at any time, and the lease shall become effective three months after the date when the lessor is notified thereof.

(Articles 6 and 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act. This case’s lease agreement was terminated since it is apparent that three months have elapsed since September 12, 2013 from the date on which the Defendant received the duplicate of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 18,000,000 to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that D, a person with the provisional registration of the instant apartment, succeeded to the rights and obligations of E following the coordination established between the Defendant and E, has taken over the responsibility to return the instant lease deposit, and as D actually manages the instant apartment and is in a lessor’s position, it is not D to bear the obligation to return the lease deposit of the instant apartment to the Plaintiff.

arrow