logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.11.15 2018나2995
전세금반환
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 20, 1987, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant’s husband C to lease the second floor room 2 partitions of the third floor building D located in the Young-gu, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the lease deposit amount of KRW 7.5 million and the lease term of 12 months. The Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate around that time.

B. The above lease has been implicitly renewed even after the termination of the lease term.

C. On March 7, 2007, the Plaintiff drafted a lease agreement between the Defendant’s children representing the Defendant and E, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 12 million and the lease term from March 7, 2007 to March 7, 2009 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff paid 4.5 million won in cash to the Defendant prior to the formation of the instant lease agreement. Since the Plaintiff concluded the instant lease agreement with E representing the Defendant, and the said lease agreement was terminated at present, the Defendant is obligated to return the total amount of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to increase the lease deposit in the amount of KRW 12 million, and there is no fact that the increased lease deposit was received from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, among the money claimed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the remaining money except the deposit amount of KRW 7.5 million received under a lease agreement dated April 20, 1987.

B. As of the date of closing argument of the instant case, the fact that the instant lease contract has expired as of the date of closing argument does not conflict between the parties, and all of the evidence and arguments mentioned above.

arrow