(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.23 2018가단5146051

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.23 2018가단5146051

보증금반환

Text

1. As to KRW 11,582,337 and KRW 10,262,337 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,320,000.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 3, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract with the lessor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant office”) with the lessor for the lease deposit of KRW 120 million, monthly rent of KRW 4,618,00,00, and from May 19, 2012 to May 18, 2014, the lease was paid with the deposit deposit, and the lease was renewed by May 18, 2016. (b) The Plaintiff renewed the lease term on April 21, 2016 before the expiration date of the renewed lease contract by the second renewal from May 19, 2016 to May 18, 2018.

Restoration to the original state shall be restored to the original lease condition by a special agreement stipulated as “the restoration to the original lease condition.”

It changed "...."

C. In the event of the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant agreed to return the deposit within 10 days after the Plaintiff returned the instant office to its original state and delivered it.

From May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the preparation for delivery on June 11, 2018, including the commencement and completion of construction works for reinstatement, and notified the Defendant of such fact.

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

2. Duty to refund the rental deposit;

A. Unless there are special circumstances to determine the cause of the claim, the instant contract is terminated upon the expiration of the period of validity. Therefore, the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiff the remainder 34,546,335 won remaining after subtracting KRW 85,453,665 won from the person who was paid the Plaintiff at KRW 120 million.

B. (1) The plaintiff leased the office of this case in the condition that the floor timber overlaps as at the time of completion. The "the first lease condition" of the second renewal contract concerning the restoration of the original state is previous.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.11.27 2018가합109343

-서울서부지방법원 2015.01.15 2013가합11867

-서울서부지방법원 2016.09.30 2016나1506

-서울동부지방법원 2017.10.12 2016가단127535

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.09 2017가단5113597