logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.08.10 2015가단18042
임대차보증금반환 등
Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 23,698,413 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from August 11, 2014 to July 11, 2016.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000

B. According to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff who is a tenant shall maintain and repair the house during the period of residence, and when it is impossible to reside due to a defect in the house, the Plaintiff terminates the contract and the Defendant immediately refund the lease deposit.

C. On November 16, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million and KRW 1.2 million monthly rent from December 1, 2012 to November 201, 2013, and began to reside in the leased portion of the instant case, along with the Plaintiff’s office D.

C. On August 10, 2014, while the Plaintiff and D were residing in the leased part of this case, the instant house including the leased part of this case and the Plaintiff’s household tools, etc. were lost or discharged by fire on August 10, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the "fire of this case"). See the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5 (including the numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant fire occurred due to the structural defect and deterioration of the instant house itself, which is a lessor’s management area. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the Plaintiff’s loss of the entire household area and one million won in cash in the Plaintiff’s custody. Furthermore, the instant lease agreement became impossible to implement.

Therefore, the defendant is 9.5 million won equivalent to the market price of the actual household household district.

arrow