beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.02.09 2016가단100036

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 90,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 16, 2015 to February 9, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 1, 2009, Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with KRW 20 million and KRW 650,000 per month for the lease deposit with respect to the Yeongdeungpo-gu E Apartment-gu 911 Dong 1005 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by D and D (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and leased the instant apartment from D.

B. Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on July 16, 2015 with respect to the instant apartment as the lease deposit amounting to KRW 90 million, and the lease period from August 21, 2015 to August 21, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) on behalf of the Plaintiff, even though he was not delegated with the lease authority by D, and was paid KRW 90 million from the Plaintiff around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against the defendant B, since the defendant B forged the power of attorney in the name of D and acquired the lease deposit amount of KRW 90 million from the plaintiff, it is obligated to pay the above KRW 90 million which was acquired by the plaintiff for damages.

3. Claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant C conspired with the Defendant B and made the Plaintiff conclude the instant lease agreement with the belief that D had delegated the right to lease to the Defendant B by making himself false statement that he was a lessor D while in collusion with the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant C, as joint tortfeasor, is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 90,000,000 for damages jointly with the Defendant B.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the Plaintiff’s confirmation of whether the Plaintiff was a lessor D in currency with Defendant C around November 25, 2015, and at the time, the Defendant C, upon the request of the Defendant B, made the false statement that he/she was as D upon his/her request.

However, the time when Defendant C calls with the Plaintiff is after Defendant B entered into the instant lease agreement and acquired the deposit from the Plaintiff.