(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.08.29 2018나9022 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2019.08.29 2018나9022

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff, lessee, and occupant as to the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City C apartment, and D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the basis of the lease agreement with the Plaintiff, the lessee, and the lessee as the Defendant, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 45 million from January 2, 2014 to January 1, 2016, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, as the remainder of the 4,275,000,000,000,

At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with A, and the lessor, from six months to one month before the expiration of the lease term, and the lessee shall notify the other party of the termination of the contract one month prior to the expiration of the lease term. However, in the absence of any separate declaration of intention by both parties, the lessee shall be deemed to have entered into a contract again under the same conditions as before (Article 6). If the lessor delays the return of the lease deposit after the delivery of the instant apartment, the lessee shall compensate the other party for the amount calculated by the rate of five percent per annum per annum for the lease deposit (Article 8(2)).

B. On the same day, the Defendant agreed to lease the instant apartment from the Plaintiff during the term of lease under the instant lease agreement, and concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff that “the Defendant shall have the opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act by actually residing and maintaining the resident registration in the instant apartment until the Plaintiff was returned the lease deposit from A, but shall compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff in the event that the failure to comply with the agreement,” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. On January 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,2750,000 out of the lease deposit to A pursuant to the instant lease agreement.

The defendant shall file an objection on January 6, 2014.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.04.20 2017가단20519

-수원지방법원 2019.10.10 2019가합16522

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.19 2019가단5191492

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.05.26 2019가단105779

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.17 2019나11905