(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.08.30 2018가합107276

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.08.30 2018가합107276

임대차보증금

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 19, 2016, registration of ownership transfer or registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the deceased J (Death on May 14, 2017; hereinafter “the deceased”) with respect to F apartment units G, H, and I on the ground of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and one other (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On May 14, 2016, Plaintiff A entered into a lease agreement with the Deceased for the instant apartment subparagraph G with the term of KRW 240,00,000, and the term of the lease from June 3, 2016 to June 2, 2018; ② Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with the Deceased for the instant apartment subparagraph H from April 25, 2016 to May 19, 2016; ③ the lease agreement with the term of KRW 170,000,000, and the term of the lease stipulated from May 19, 2016 to May 18, 2018; and ③ the Plaintiff entered into the lease agreement with the Deceased for each of the foregoing subparagraph from April 3, 2016 to April 9, 2016 to each of the above lease deposits (hereinafter referred to as “the lease agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7, 17 evidence (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. Although the plaintiffs' assertion that apartment units G, H and I were registered in the name of the deceased, the actual owner is the defendant, and considerable portion of the lease deposit paid by the plaintiffs was returned to the defendant and the defendant's wife K. The actual lessor of each of the lease contracts of this case concluded between the plaintiffs and the deceased is the defendant. Since each of the lease contracts of this case expired, the defendant is obligated to return each of the above lease deposit to the plaintiffs.

B. (1) Generally, who is the party to the contract is a matter of interpretation of the party’s intent to be involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intention is the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of indication.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2021.04.23 2020가단245339

-의정부지방법원 2019.10.17 2018나202935

-대구지방법원 2018.12.13 2017나317837

-대전지방법원 2020.07.21 2018가단225620

-인천지방법원 2020.07.21 2019가단243214