(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.04.27 2014가단534493

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) 수원지방법원 2016.04.27 2014가단534493

보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,740,312 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from December 15, 2015 to April 27, 2016.

Reasons

1. Evidence No. 1, A3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. On January 30, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff would lease the instant building (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff, setting as a deposit of KRW 150,000,000 and KRW 11,000,000,000,000 for monthly rent of KRW 1,50,000 for the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”).

Meanwhile, the instant building was originally divided into 101 square meters, 24 square meters, and 102 square meters and 28 square meters, but the Plaintiff used the boundary wall built of the brickd by the Plaintiff as one store.

At the time of lease, 101 was owned by the defendant, and 102 was owned by D.

B. On January 30, 2014, under the same conditions as the former lease on the grounds that there was no objection by the Defendant, the lease was made again, and on April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the intent to terminate the lease.

C. On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 100 million out of the lease deposit KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. According to the fact that the lease of this case was terminated on May 4, 2014, and the Plaintiff delivered the building of this case to the Defendant on November 5, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the lease deposit and the delay damages to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. (1) The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the cost of restoring electric installations, bricks’ boundary walls, reinforced glass doors, studios, water supply and sewage facilities, which were not restored to the original state, due to nonperformance of duty of restoration, and thus, should be deducted from the lease deposit due to nonperformance of duty of restoration. (2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is a reply.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.01.18 2016나58611

-서울중앙지법 2007. 5. 31. 선고 2005가합100279,2006가합62053 판결

-수원지방법원 2016.04.27 2015나30890

-인천지방법원 2014.08.29 2013가합11351

-서울남부지방법원 2019.09.19 2018가단22934