(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.02 2016나10187

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.11.02 2016나10187

계약금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the following terms: (a) the lease deposit is KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.2 million, and the lease term is from December 12, 2015 to December 12, 2017; (b) KRW 5 million among the down payment of KRW 3 million on the date of the contract; and (c) the remainder of KRW 2.5 million on December 1, 2015 to be paid respectively on December 12, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 500,000,000 to the Defendant as the down payment on November 30, 2015, and KRW 2.5 million on December 1, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. In order to pay the remainder of the lease deposit of this case, the Plaintiff asserted on December 12, 2015, without holding a cashier’s checks of KRW 27 million, and only possessed the Defendant on December 12, 2015, but the Defendant did not deliver the instant apartment while refusing to receive the remainder. Since then, the Defendant leased the said apartment to a third party, thereby making it impossible for the Plaintiff to perform its duty as the lessor of the instant apartment.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff cancelled the instant lease agreement due to the above reasons attributable to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 6 million, a double of the down payment, as damages.

(3) The court below asked the plaintiff to ask for the return of the down payment as to whether the instant lease contract was included in the cause of the claim. However, it clearly stated that the plaintiff only caused the cancellation of the contract due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, and that the return of unjust enrichment due to the cancellation of the contract does not be made due to the cancellation of the agreement. 3. The court held that the instant lease contract was cancelled due to the reasons attributable to the defendant.

Evidence A Nos. 2, 3, 5, 11, .

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2016.05.03 2015가단10927

-부산지방법원 2017.10.18 2016가합40104

-수원지방법원 2016.09.22 2015가단65062

-서울남부지방법원 2016.03.25 2014가단53152

-서울동부지방법원 2016.09.22 2015가단132967