logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.12.03 2015나7679
임대료
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. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 27, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the instant lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) to the Defendant by setting the period from October 1, 2011 to October 1, 2012, the deposit amount of KRW 5 million, and the monthly rent of KRW 350,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On July 2, 2013, D, the husband of the Defendant who actually used the instant house, agreed to repay the instant house to the Plaintiff for 15 months from July 1, 2013, after deducting KRW 5.3 million from the unpaid rent of KRW 5.93 million until July 1, 2013, the sum of KRW 9.3 million borrowed from the Plaintiff by D, and KRW 2.9 million from the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap (=No. 2) and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 930,000 not paid to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from January 1, 2015 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiff combined the unpaid rent and the loan borrowed from D and paid the remainder one million won among them, and that D paid KRW 900,000,000 as a result of the settlement of accounts to be exempted; (b) the unpaid rent is merely KRW 10,000,000 and that D is liable for such payment.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 900,000 from D following the above installment repayment agreement, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not believe that the Plaintiff agreed to receive only KRW 1 million from D and to exempt the remainder, and that it was consistent with the Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiff agreed to do so. Meanwhile, D is not the Defendant’s unpaid rent.

arrow