임대차보증금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C representative D on the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the building on January 11, 2007, with a deposit of KRW 23 million and the term from January 11, 2007 to January 10, 2009 (hereinafter “instant contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff received the instant apartment and paid the deposit money to B, and on February 5, 2007, the Plaintiff had the opposing power by having E, who is the Plaintiff’s birth, resided in the instant apartment and resided in the instant apartment. After being transferred the instant apartment, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant apartment was terminated by delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and that the Plaintiff should pay KRW 23 million to the Defendant at the same time as the instant apartment.
Although the lease subject to the Housing Lease Protection Act is not limited to cases where a lease contract is concluded between a lessee and a lessor who is the owner of a house, a lessor who has the authority to lawfully conclude a lease contract on the relevant house is required to conclude a lease contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da93794, Feb. 27, 2014). However, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C Representative D had the authority to lawfully conclude a lease contract on the apartment of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
In addition, each of the above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid a deposit of KRW 23 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
According to Gap evidence No. 1, the contract of this case did not set the payment date of KRW 20,500,000, out of the balance of KRW 23 million, and the delivery date of the apartment of this case was set on January 10, 2009, more than the contract date.