logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.01 2016나3200
임대차보증금반환
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. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 16, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City C and 204 (hereinafter “instant housing”) from the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 20 million per month, KRW 200,000 per month, KRW 80,000 per month, management expenses, and period of lease from October 21, 2013 to October 20, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease”).

B. During the lease term of this case, the Plaintiff paid 1.6 million won in total for the rent and management expenses for the six-month period, and returned to the Plaintiff on August 21, 2014. On December 11, 2014, the Defendant returned KRW 11 million out of the lease deposit of this case to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, since the lease of this case terminated upon the termination of the contract, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 7,20,000 won calculated by deducting the total of 1,680,000 won of the rent and management fee for six months unpaid from the deposit 9,000 won of the deposit of this case, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 26, 2015, the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff.

B. As to this, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant occupied and used the instant house from June 2015 to June 2015 because the Plaintiff came to know of the fact that the Plaintiff was a director, and even thereafter, the key to the instant house was not returned. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant house from June 2015 to June 2015. As such, the Plaintiff’s remaining deposit amount of KRW 7.32,320,000 to June 2015 should be additionally deducted from the unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 2.2,40,000 equivalent to the rent and management fee for the eight-month period from the termination of the instant lease. However, the Defendant returned part of the instant lease deposit to the Defendant on December 11, 2014, and the term “the instant special agreement” was renewed by the lessee until the termination of the lease.

arrow