(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.12.23 2014가합3263

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) 서울북부지방법원 2014.12.23 2014가합3263

임차보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, KRW 240,000,000 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant on September 21, 2012 under which the term of lease deposit was set at KRW 240,00,000, and the term of lease was set at 24 months from October 26, 2012 to October 26, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and paid the lease deposit to the Defendant around that time. The fact that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease contract due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation on March 5, 2014 that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to refuse the renewal of the contract by notifying the Defendant of the termination of the lease contract due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation does not conflict between the parties, or that it may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the items in subparagraphs A through 4 and the purport of the entire arguments.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Plaintiff, on October 26, 2014, asserts that the term of the instant lease on or around October 26, 2014, is “the termination of the term” or “the termination of the term due to the Defendant’s nonperformance,” on the grounds of the termination of the instant lease contract, and this court recognizes the term “the termination of the term” and does not separately determine the term “the termination of the

Since the termination of the contract, the defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit 240,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant did not transfer the real estate of this case, so the plaintiff cannot refund the lease deposit until the transfer of the real estate of this case.

The defendant's defense is justified, since the plaintiff, the plaintiff, and the defendant have to deliver the real estate of this case to the defendant, if they return the lease deposit to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 240,000,000 to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2021.04.07 2020가단263375

-서울동부지방법원 2016.02.16 2015가합5666

-서울서부지방법원 2020.12.24. 선고 2020가합37959 판결

-서울서부지방법원 2020.12.24 2020가합37959

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.06.15 2018가합247