전세보증금반환
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 1, 2014 to October 17, 2014; and (b) October 18, 2014.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 14, 2014, the Plaintiff leased unregistered houses owned by the C (hereinafter “instant housing”) located in Asia-si (hereinafter “instant housing”) with a deposit of KRW 50,000,000, and the period from March 28, 2014 to March 27, 2016.
(hereinafter “Lease of this case”). (b)
Defendant (C’s husband) indicated the instant lease agreement as the agent of C, affixed his own unmanned seal, and received KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff on March 28, 2014.
C. However, at the time of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant brought a divorce lawsuit against C and was sentenced to a judgment of divorce in the first instance court (Seoul Family Court Daejeon Family Court Branch Decision 2012ddan5169) and was waiting for an appellate judgment.
C On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff did not lease the instant house, and that the Plaintiff requested the transfer of the said house.
E. On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the instant house to C.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-5 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant’s conclusion of the instant lease agreement is null and void as an act of unauthorized representation in the absence of a legitimate power granted by C. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the said act upon the Plaintiff’s choice among the liability of unauthorized agents under Article 135 of the Civil Act.
In addition, it is reasonable to regard the amount of damages as KRW 50,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff.
The defendant asserts that since the instant house is a common property created during the marriage period between the defendant and C, the obligation to return the lease deposit is jointly borne by the defendant and C, or since the deposit is returned to the former lessee with the lease deposit received from the plaintiff, the obligation to return the lease deposit against the plaintiff should be borne by C, the owner of the said house.