(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.09 2017가단31612

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 2018.11.09 2017가단31612

임차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 50,500,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from May 1, 2017 to November 9, 2018.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 4, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement in the form of an obligatory lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant and the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”) by setting a deposit of KRW 154,00,000, and the period from March 17, 2014 to March 16, 2016 as the period from March 16, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant a deposit of KRW 154,00,000 to the Defendant, and resided in the instant apartment.

C. The plaintiff was a director in the apartment of this case before the expiration of the lease term of this case.

From April 26, 2016 to March 27, 2017, the Defendant returned total of KRW 101,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the lease deposit.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 11, Eul evidence No. 11 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul evidence No. 11, each of the following facts, which can be known by the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the plaintiff's director in the apartment house of this case before the expiration of the term of lease of this case; ② the defendant sent to the plaintiff a letter claiming repair expenses; ③ the defendant began to return part of the lease deposit from April 26, 2016 to the plaintiff; and the defendant began to pay interest on the deposit from May 31, 2016. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the defendant to terminate the term of lease of this case before the expiration of the term of lease of this case; and the term of lease of this case had already expired before the expiration of the term of lease of this case.

Therefore, it is therefore.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.07.20 2016나75845

-수원지방법원 2017.07.21 2016가단539461

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.29 2017가합526454

-인천지방법원 2020.04.23 2019가단251680

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2019.10.31 2019고단696