(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.07.15 2015가단3985

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.07.15 2015가단3985

무효확인 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 2014, D, the representative of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the building owned by the Defendant (the second floor office, Gimpo-si) was leased by KRW 20 million from January 25, 2014 to January 24, 2019; and KRW 1.1 million per month from rent (from February 1, 2015) or KRW 1.2 million per month (from February 2, 2015) (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”); and paid the Defendant a deposit amount of KRW 20 million from January 20, 2014 to KRW 28 million.

B. On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment on the non-party company’s claim for the payment of goods against the non-party company amounting to KRW 20,000,000,000 for the lease deposit against the Defendant of the non-party company as the preserved right. The provisional attachment decision was served on December 12, 2014 on the non-party company, which is the third debtor.

C. On October 30, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 18,860,000, totaling KRW 2 million, and KRW 16,860,00 on December 11, 2014, to D as the refund of deposit for lease due to the termination of a lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap 1-3, 5, 7, 8 evidence, Eul 1, 3-5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The lessee of the instant lease agreement was not a party, but a legal entity, and the Defendant returned the lease deposit to D individual who is not the right holder of the leased deposit, thereby causing the Plaintiff’s impossibility of exercising the Plaintiff’s claim against the non-party company. Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the lease deposit.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with D rather than the non-party company, and that the lease deposit was received in the name of D individual, and thus, the right holder of the lease deposit returned the lease deposit to D by deeming that the right holder of the lease deposit was D individual.

The defendant has repaid the deposit properly.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2015.07.01 2014가단22239

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.22 2017가단5239482

-의정부지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가단112965

-창원지방법원 2015.04.28 2014가단84612

-대전지방법원 2013.05.09 2012고단4567