건물명도(인도)
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.
1. We examine whether this part of the lawsuit against Defendant B is lawful ex officio.
Under the premise that Defendant B’s claim for the return of the lease deposit against Defendant B was lawfully acquired from Defendant B, the Plaintiff sought to deliver the real estate indicated in the attached list to Defendant B to the Defendant Corporation by subrogation of the Defendant Corporation on the premise that it was duly acquired from Defendant B.
On the other hand, since the transfer of the above right to return the lease deposit becomes null and void as followed, there is no preserved right of the obligee of the obligee.
Thus, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful as it is brought by a person who is not a party.
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Corporation
A. Facts of recognition 1) Defendant B’s claim to the Defendant Corporation for the refund of the lease deposit for the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant lease deposit claim”).
A) While having been holding the instant lease deposit, around April 25, 2014 and August 1, 2014, in order to obtain a loan from C Association as collateral, Defendant B transferred the instant lease deposit repayment claim to C Association. Around that time, Defendant B’s notice of transfer with each fixed date reached the Defendant Corporation. (ii) around December 21, 2016 and around November 3, 2017, transferred the instant lease deposit repayment claim to the Plaintiff to obtain a loan from the Plaintiff as collateral, and the notice of transfer with each fixed date was issued to the Defendant Corporation around that time.
Defendant B obtained a loan of KRW 54,900,00 from the Plaintiff and repaid KRW 47,596,030 to C unions.
3 Around November 30, 2017, Defendant B notified Defendant B to the Defendant Corporation that the assignment of claims between Defendant B and C would be cancelled, and that the claim for the refund of the lease deposit in this case would be re-transfered to Defendant B, and that notification would be made to the Defendant Corporation around December 1, 2017.