(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.04.08 2019가단11216

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) 수원지방법원 2020.04.08 2019가단11216

임대차보증금반환 등

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 85,00,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from May 22, 2019 to April 8, 2020.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 13, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) leased, from the Defendant on March 13, 2015, Down-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter the instant housing; (b) 48.96m2) the rental deposit amount of KRW 85 million; and (c) the lease period from April 18, 2015 to April 18, 2017.

(hereinafter referred to as “the lease of this case”). The lease of this case was implicitly renewed for two years after the expiration of the term.

B. On February 4, 2019, around 04:50, a fire occurred in the instant housing, and the Plaintiff became unable to use the instant housing any longer due to the occurrence of a fire (hereinafter “the instant fire”).

[Evidence: Evidence No. 1 to 3, All purport of oral argument]

2. According to the Defendant’s fulfillment of the obligation to return the deposit, the lease of this case was implicitly renewed and extended until April 18, 2019.

However, due to the fire of this case, the plaintiff was no longer able to use the house of this case, and the period has expired.

Thus, the lease of this case was terminated.

As such, the defendant is obligated to refund 85 million won to the plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the defendant's defense of deduction of damages

A. The defendant's assertion that the fire in this case occurred due to the plaintiff's cigarette butts of the plaintiff's 'F, a resident, because the cause of the fire in this case is unclear, or the plaintiff's failure to perform his/her duty of care as a good manager to preserve the leased object, and therefore, the plaintiff shall compensate the defendant for damage

The damages are as follows:

1) From February 4, 2019, the date of fire, the Plaintiff did not perform the repair obligation for the instant house, and thus, the Defendant cannot use and benefit from the instant house. Therefore, the Plaintiff is more than 850,000 won (x 0.01 = 85 million won) for rent between 11 months from February 4, 2019 to January 4, 2019, and 9,3550,000 won (x 0.01 = 85,500,000 won = 850,000 won on August 8. 11, 2019; the deposit deposit deposit of 85

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.04.22 2019가단553536

-수원지방법원 2020.01.08 2019가단546477

-서울서부지방법원 2019.10.30 2019가단5515

-수원지방법원 2019.05.15 2018가단549301

-창원지방법원진주지원 2019.12.10 2019가단872