beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.10 2014나3848

전세권설정등기말소

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim added in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

2. The plaintiff, .

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 30, 1992 with respect to buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On September 20, 2001, C entered into a lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the lease on a deposit basis”) with Defendant A as to the third floor of 112.20 square meters and the rooftop of 46.87 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) among the instant building, with Defendant A, with regard to the lease on a deposit basis with KRW 300 million and the lease period until May 20, 2002. On the same day, C entered into a lease agreement with Defendant A as to the lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On the same day, C entered into a lease agreement with Defendant A as to the lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “the lease on a deposit basis”).

C. On October 17, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building.

Meanwhile, the Defendants, as married couple, filed a resident registration transfer report at the location of the instant building on June 2, 2003, and thereafter jointly occupied the instant real estate until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff: (a) in fact, prepared a document establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis in the form of KRW 300 million on the deposit basis of the lease on a deposit basis; (b) completed registration of establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis; and (c) returned to the lessee the lease deposit amount of KRW 90 million; (d) the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis in this case should be cancelled; and (e) the lease on a deposit basis in this case does not have the right to possess the instant real estate upon the lapse of the lease period and the return of the lease deposit; and (e) there is no right to possess the instant real estate upon the extinguishment of the lease period; (b)

As to this, the Defendants did not fully refund the said money as KRW 300 million under the lease contract of this case, the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis of this case shall be maintained, and as long as the said money was not returned, the instant real estate shall be exempted.