beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.02.19 2019가단118279

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation in the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Defendant C shall pay 14,500,000 won to an independent party intervenor.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 2014, the Intervenor and the Defendant B entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant C to lease the instant store by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million (hereinafter “instant lease deposit”), KRW 1 million per month of rent (in advance), and from May 26, 2014 to June 8, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The instant lease agreement was renewed on June 9, 2016, and the lessee was changed to Defendant B and one other, and the lease term was changed from June 9, 2016 to June 8, 2018, but the instant lease deposit and rent were not changed.

C. The intervenor, under the trade name of “F new terminal,” operated a chill restaurant at the instant store, and Defendant B was the point of “F new terminal.”

On February 16, 2017, Defendant B borrowed KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff, and transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for the refund of the instant lease deposit (hereinafter “transfer of claim”).

E. On June 8, 2018, Defendant B delivered the instant store to Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, Byung evidence No. 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Intervenor’s assertion 1) The Intervenor’s right to receive the instant lease deposit is the Intervenor. The Defendant C is obligated to refund the Intervenor the remainder of KRW 1,450,000,000 after deducting the overdue rent from the instant lease deposit. (2) Defendant C’s assertion on May 2, 2019, upon the assignment of the instant lease deposit, paid KRW 8,439,613 out of the instant lease deposit to the Plaintiff on May 2, 2019, and KRW 3,650,00 to repair water generated in the course of the interior work “F new store.” Defendant C did not pay KRW 57,920,000 for the water rate of KRW 57,00,000 for the purification work cost, KRW 20,000 for the electricity rate of May, 1920 for the electricity rate of KRW 19,540 for June.

Therefore, this case.