무효확인 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 20, 2014, D, the representative of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the building owned by the Defendant (the second floor office, Gimpo-si) was leased by KRW 20 million from January 25, 2014 to January 24, 2019; and KRW 1.1 million per month from rent (from February 1, 2015) or KRW 1.2 million per month (from February 2, 2015) (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”); and paid the Defendant a deposit amount of KRW 20 million from January 20, 2014 to KRW 28 million. < Amended by Act No. 12303, Jan. 27, 2014; Act No. 12374, Feb. 27, 2014>
B. On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment on the non-party company’s claim for the payment of goods against the non-party company amounting to KRW 20,000,000,000 for the lease deposit against the Defendant of the non-party company as the preserved right. The provisional attachment decision was served on December 12, 2014 on the non-party company, which is the third debtor.
C. On October 30, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 18,860,000, totaling KRW 2 million, and KRW 16,860,00 on December 11, 2014, to D as the refund of deposit for lease due to the termination of a lease agreement.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap 1-3, 5, 7, 8 evidence, Eul 1, 3-5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The lessee of the instant lease agreement was not a party, but a legal entity, and the Defendant returned the lease deposit to D individual who is not the right holder of the leased deposit, thereby causing the Plaintiff’s impossibility of exercising the Plaintiff’s claim against the non-party company. Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the lease deposit.
B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with D rather than the non-party company, and that the lease deposit was received in the name of D individual, and thus, the right holder of the lease deposit returned the lease deposit to D by deeming that the right holder of the lease deposit was D individual.
The defendant has repaid the deposit properly.