logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 포항지원 2018.05.15 2017가단104949
보증금반환
Text

1. As to KRW 40,131,99 and KRW 40,000,00 among the above money, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,131,99, and KRW 40,000 from March 3, 2018 to May 15, 2018.

Reasons

1. On October 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000 from October 15, 2015 to October 14, 2018, and the rent of KRW 1,60,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Article 13 of the instant lease agreement provides that “10% of the deposit money shall be determined as penalty at the time of the unilateral cancellation request of the lessor or lessee before the expiration of the contract, and 50% of the deposit money shall be paid at the time of eviction and 50% at the time of the expiration of the contract.”

On June 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to terminate the instant lease agreement, and on July 27, 2017, the Plaintiff removed from the Plaintiff’s 208.

On July 31, 2017, the Defendant remitted KRW 10,000,000 out of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. On August 7, 2017, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation that “the Plaintiff will deposit KRW 40,000,000 out of the lease deposit up to October 7, 2017,” and the Plaintiff also decided not to receive interest for KRW 40,00,000 until October 7, 2017.

The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,00 as above by October 7, 2017, and thereafter, paid KRW 40,000 as compensation for delay on November 29, 2017; December 30, 2017; January 30, 2018; and March 2, 2018, respectively (i.e., KRW 40,000 x statutory interest rate of KRW 5 x 1/12).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant lease agreement was concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant on June 2017, since the Plaintiff did not have been duly permitted, but did not have any convenience facilities, etc. advertised by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant already received KRW 100,000,000, excluding KRW 10,000,000, which was already paid to the Plaintiff on July 31, 2017.

arrow