logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.01.26 2017가단315891
보증금반환
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 35,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 10, 2017 to May 17, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From April 8, 2014, the Defendants leased 20,000,0000 deposit money, 60,000,000 monthly rent, and from May 10, 2014 to May 9, 2017, 201, the two-story commercial buildings among D’s reinforced concrete structure E&D neighborhood living facilities and housing (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

B. On July 24, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sublease contract with the Defendants on a deposit of approximately 30 square meters among the instant commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant subject matter”) with the terms that the Plaintiff would deposit KRW 35,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 50,000, and the period from August 1, 2015 to May 9, 2017, and paid KRW 35,000,000 as deposit money to the Defendants from around that time to August 1, 2015.

[The Real Estate Lease Contract (A evidence) provides for the tenant as the "Defendant C", while while the sub-lease contract (A evidence 2) provides for the sub-lease as the "Defendant B", the defendants recognize their sub-lease as the lessee of the commercial building of this case. Thus, the defendants are the co-Lessee of the commercial building of this case and the co-contractor of the commercial building of this case.

However, as the goods of the Defendants were stored in the object of this case, the Plaintiff demanded that the Defendants be able to remove the said goods. However, the Plaintiff was not able to use the object of this case at all until the period of the sub-lease contract expires.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the obligation to return the deposit was acknowledged, the instant sub-lease contract was terminated on May 9, 2017, and on the other hand, the instant object was not delivered by the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, a co-lease, jointly.

arrow