beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.04.14 2015가단30920

추심금

Text

1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

A. On April 12, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the fourth floor of the Daejeon Jung-gu building C (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant as the lease term of three years, the lease deposit of 30 million won, and the rent of 300,000 won, respectively. Under the agreement on April 12, 2012, the said lease contract was terminated, and the Plaintiff was refunded the said lease deposit on the same day.

B. On April 17, 2012, D newly concluded a lease agreement by stipulating that the lease period for the instant building shall be from April 17, 2012 to April 16, 2014; the lease deposit shall be KRW 30,000; the lease deposit shall be KRW 30,000; and the monthly rent shall be KRW 550,000 (in the case of unpaid rent, the rate shall be set aside as KRW 550,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract,” and the said lease deposit shall be referred to as “the instant lease deposit”). C.

On April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D to the Daejeon District Court for a claim for the agreed amount (the above court 2013Da14320), and on July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff rendered a ruling of recommending settlement to the effect that “D shall pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff,” which became final and conclusive on August 23, 2013.

Based on the decision of recommending settlement with the executory power of the above case, the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order as to “the amount to be returned from a third party obligor due to the termination, termination, etc. of the lease contract by leasing the building in this case from the Defendant, to KRW 30,075,300” to the claim for the claim for the refund of the deposit for commercial lease deposit (the Daejeon District Court 2015TTT 2383), and received the ruling of acceptance on February 16, 2015.

The above ruling was served on February 17, 2015 to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport and judgment of the whole pleading

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the collection of this case.