(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.06.16 2016가단28585

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.06.16 2016가단28585

보증금반환 등

Text

1. Defendant B, along with the delivery of the buildings listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, at the same time, KRW 24,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 11, 2012, the Plaintiff leased from Defendant B a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) from Defendant B, with the lease deposit of KRW 25,00,000,00 and the lease term of KRW 26,00 from August 26, 2012 to August 25, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease”). Defendant C is a licensed real estate agent who arranged the instant lease agreement.

B. On August 11, 2012, the Plaintiff paid Defendant B KRW 2,500,000 as the instant lease deposit, and KRW 22,500,000 as of August 26, 2012, respectively.

C. The Plaintiff and Defendant B did not notify each other of the refusal to renew the lease of this case by August 25, 2014, and the Plaintiff is currently residing in the building of this case.

D, the owner of the building site of this case, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on May 2016, and the Plaintiff demanded the termination of the lease of this case to Defendant B, and on August 24, 2016, Defendant B drafted a written confirmation to refund the lease deposit of this case to the Plaintiff by September 30, 2016.

E. On November 30, 2016, Defendant B returned KRW 1,000,000 out of the instant lease deposit to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim against Defendant B, the lease of this case was terminated by the agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant B.

As such, Defendant B is obligated to return the remainder of the lease deposit amount of KRW 24,000,000 (=25,000,000 - 1,000,000) to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant building from the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C, while mediating the instant lease agreement, infringed the Plaintiff’s right to self-determination by violating the duty of explanation and intermediary as to the object of brokerage, and therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s mental suffering in money.

B. Determination 1-Nos. 2 and 4-

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2018.09.19 2017가단26543

-서울서부지방법원 2020.11.04 2020가단280534

-서울서부지방법원 2018.03.23 2017가단12359

-서울북부지방법원 2015.11.19 2014가합7982

-부산지방법원 2014.03.07 2013가단206494