건물인도 및 양수금
1. Defendant A shall deliver to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
2. Defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 31, 2012, Defendant A leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”); from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014; from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014, the lease deposit amount of KRW 21,77,000; and monthly rent of KRW 114,320 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); around that time, Defendant A paid KRW 21,77,00 to the Defendant Corporation.
B. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 17,400,00 to Defendant A with interest rate of KRW 6.9% per annum and due date for payment on December 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant loan”).
C. On February 28, 2013, Defendant A transferred to the Plaintiff the full amount of the claim for refund of the foregoing rental deposit that he/she owns to the Defendant Corporation under the instant lease agreement, and notified the Defendant Corporation of the said transfer by mail, and the notification reached the Defendant Corporation around that time.
Defendant A did not repay the principal and interest of the instant loan due date and even thereafter.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of determination as to the claim against Defendant A, the repayment period for the principal and interest of loan owed to the Plaintiff was due, and after the lessor received the notification of the transfer of the claim for refund of deposit, even if there was an explicit or implied agreement between the lessor and the lessee regarding the renewal of the lease contract or extension of the contract term, the agreement cannot be effective against the transferee of the claim for refund of deposit (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253, Apr. 25, 1989). The lease contract of this case expired on December 31, 2014.
As such, the defendant A seeks the work on behalf of the defendant.