임대차보증금반환
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the remaining designated parties C are dismissed;
2. The appeal costs.
1. Basic facts
A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 21, 198 with respect to the housing and the store of the second floor of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D brick Dobubrid (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Seongbuk-gu (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), which is the husband of C and the father of the Defendant (Appointed Party).
[Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed Party C (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”)]
On January 9, 1997, E entered into a lease agreement (A evidence No. 1; hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff on a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000, and from January 12, 1997, the lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) that leases the first floor store among the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.
The Plaintiff, from January 12, 1997, operated the text store at the instant store from around December 12, 2017, transferred the instant store to the Defendant, etc. around December 12, 2012. Around that time, the Plaintiff received KRW 5 million from the Defendant, etc. as the return of deposit for lease.
E Deceased on August 6, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and on the part of his wife C, F, G, H, and Defendant (Appointed Party) jointly inherited their property. The above co-inheritors jointly inherited the instant real property by agreement on the division of inherited property on August 19, 2010, upon which the Defendant et al. jointly inherited the instant real property, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 19, 2010.
【No dispute over the basis of recognition”, Gap evidence No. 1 (a lease contract, defendant et al.) and Gap evidence No. 2 (a lease contract, defendant et al. living together with the deceased and the plaintiff conspired to use the deceased’s seal imprint, thereby forging the above lease contract. However, each of the evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, No. 3, and No. 5 through No. 7 is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion by the defendant et al., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above defense is without merit).