beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
2. Defendant D Co., Ltd.: KRW 41,00,000 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B and C is the owner of the building E and Fho Lake (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and around November 20, 2015, upon entering into an entrusted management contract with Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) for the lease of the instant real estate, Defendant Company was responsible for managing the instant real estate lease contract and facilities, and Defendant B and C was paid KRW 530,000 per month the monthly revenue from Defendant Company.
B. On June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant Company by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 41 million, monthly rent of KRW 200,000,000 from June 3, 2016 to June 2, 2017, and paid KRW 41 million to the Defendant Company around June 23, 2016.
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant Company renewed the instant lease agreement once (on June 2, 2018, the expiration date of the lease term), and the Plaintiff removed from the instant real estate on May 1, 2018.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 7, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant Company entered into the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant Company upon delegation by the Defendant B and C, and the Plaintiff was well aware of the above fact, and thus, under the proviso of Article 115 of the Civil Act, the parties to the instant lease agreement are Defendant B and C, not the Defendant
Therefore, Defendant B and C are obligated to refund the instant lease deposit to the Plaintiff.
B. Generally, who is the party to a contract is an issue of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract, and if the content of a contract is written in writing, which is a disposal document, the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression should be recognized, barring special
Supreme Court Decision 201.10