(영문) 제주지방법원 2015.08.21 2014가단45613

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) 제주지방법원 2015.08.21 2014가단45613

보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,312,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 14, 2014 to November 21, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a corporation that runs a condominium business, etc. established on March 26, 1994, and operates the “Criart” in Seopo-si B (hereinafter “this caseriart”).

B. On March 11, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a membership agreement with the Defendant, setting the membership security deposit as KRW 27,312,00,000, and setting the contract period as KRW 10 years from the date of membership acquisition (the date of full payment of the membership security deposit), respectively, and paid KRW 27,312,00,00 (hereinafter “instant membership security deposit”) to the Defendant by July 13, 2004 from that date.

C. At the time of the instant membership agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that “the Plaintiff shall deposit the security deposit with the Defendant as without interest during the membership period, and the Defendant shall return only the principal when the Plaintiff claims the return of the Plaintiff’s refund at the expiration of the membership period (Article 5(1) of the membership agreement), and that “if both parties raise no objection within 30 days before the expiration of the membership agreement, the contract shall be extended under the same condition.”

(Article 4(3) of the Membership Agreement / [Reasons for Recognition] / [The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Plaintiff terminated the instant membership contract against the Defendant at least before August 13, 2014, and requested the return of the instant membership security deposit, and that the instant membership contract was terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the Defendant is in accordance with Article 5(1) of the instant membership contract, as it is deemed that the instant membership contract was terminated by the Plaintiff’s said declaration of intent.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2016.10.28 2016가단8564

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2019.08.29 2018가단4450

-서울북부지방법원 2019.02.11 2018가단115600

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.06.01 2015가단34627

-제주지방법원 2017.01.20 2016가단7059