(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.18 2016나58611

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 2017.01.18 2016나58611

보증금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 30, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant to lease the entire C building 101 (hereinafter “instant building”) with a deposit of KRW 150,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000 (excluding value-added tax), and two years (24 months).

B. Meanwhile, although the instant building was classified into the original structure and registry Nos. 101 and No. 24, 102, and 28 on the registry, the Plaintiff used the boundary wall in the brickd as a single store. At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, 101 was owned by the Defendant and 102.

C. On January 30, 2012, the instant lease agreement was renewed without the Defendant’s objection, but the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on April 4, 2014.

Then, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant on November 5, 2014, and the Defendant paid KRW 100,000,000 out of the deposit amount of KRW 150,000,000 under the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the lease of this case was lawfully terminated on May 4, 2014 after one month from the date when the plaintiff's notice of termination of contract was served, and the plaintiff delivered the building of this case to the defendant on November 5, 2014, and barring special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000 and its delay damages to the plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion such as mutual aid

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings, whether the duty of restoration exists or not, it is recognized that the defendant agreed to restore the building of this case to its original state and return it to the defendant upon termination of the lease of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to the following Paragraph 2.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.04.27 2014가단534493

-서울남부지방법원 2011.08.11 2010가단72612

-광주지방법원 2016.03.23 2015가단527293

-수원지방법원 2018.07.06 2017나87692

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.13 2016나6803