(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2016.06.30 2015가단101647

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) 대전지방법원천안지원 2016.06.30 2015가단101647

임대차보증금

Text

1. At the same time, the defendant delivered No. 205 of the building C from the plaintiff to the plaintiff of the building Asan City, 25,000.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 4, 2005, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on October 26, 2005 with respect to the ASEAN building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On May 22, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the lessor, the Defendant, the lease deposit amount of KRW 25,000,000, and the term of lease from May 22, 2010 to May 21, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) regarding the building 205, and paid KRW 25,00,000 as the lease deposit.

C. Even after the expiration of the lease term, the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, but on February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate that the instant lease agreement was terminated on the grounds that the purpose of the lease cannot be achieved due to the commencement of the procedure for auction of real estate and the dispute between the Defendant and D, etc., and at that time, the said certificate was served on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10 items, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) since the plaintiff was granted all the power of representation on the conclusion of the lease agreement including the instant lease agreement and the receipt of the deposit for lease on the instant building from the defendant, the instant lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is valid. Since the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff's notification of termination, the defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 25,00,000 from the plaintiff to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant did not delegate his authority to conclude the lease agreement on the instant building to D, and the instant lease agreement was concluded voluntarily by D or E without being delegated by the defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.01.20 2014가합61640

-창원지방법원 2019.05.28 2019가단3380

-인천지방법원 2017.10.18 2016가단60241

-서울북부지방법원 2016.07.19 2015나35148

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2021.02.04 2020가단4711