(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.17 2019나6217

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.17 2019나6217

보증금반환

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. The assertion and judgment

A. On June 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) by setting the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 450,000, and the lease term of KRW 150,000 from June 15, 2013 to June 14, 2014. The lease agreement was explicitly renewed from June 2018. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease agreement before the expiration of the lease term and delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at the expiration of the lease term. However, the Defendant’s failure to pay KRW 530,000, out of the lease deposit did not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of pleadings in the evidence No. 1 and No. 2.

Therefore, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on or around June 15, 2018. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid lease deposit amount of KRW 530,00 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from June 16, 2018 to July 27, 2018, as the date of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion that the amount equivalent to the repair cost should be deducted from the lease deposit because the plaintiff damaged the key, air conditioner, air conditioner, air conditioner, air conditioner, or personal seal, etc. of the real estate of this case, which is the leased object. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff damaged the real estate of this case and the repair cost of the defendant's assertion was paid, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2019.05.21 2018가단121128

-인천지방법원 2019.06.13 2018가단269868

-의정부지방법원 2020.12.10 2020가단121595

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.02.12 2018가단208498

-서울동부지방법원 2016.12.15 2015가단126382