(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.06.12 2018가단515452

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) 수원지방법원 2019.06.12 2018가단515452

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the deceased’s heir [the shares in inheritance: Plaintiff B(C/5) and Plaintiff A(A)2/5] is the deceased’s partner (the deceased’s partner) who died on January 22, 2018 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

On December 11, 1992, the Defendant purchased and owned Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-Bah (hereinafter “instant building”) and leased the instant building to the Deceased on June 1, 2004, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 35 million from June 1, 2004 to June 1, 2006.

As to the payment of the lease deposit, the deceased neglected to pay the KRW 15 million at the time of the purchase of the building of this case, and around 2004, the deceased paid the Defendant’s card debt amounting to KRW 20 million, in lieu of the payment of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 35 million.

The lease contract of this case was continuously renewed implicitly, and the plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased, succeeded to the lessee's status. The lease contract of this case was terminated by the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case with the defendant, and sought the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 35 million.

2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) the lessee who seeks the return of the deposit is liable to prove the fact that the deposit was paid in the lease agreement; (b) the materials submitted by the Plaintiffs alone are insufficient to prove that the deceased paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant at the time of the purchase of the building of this case; (c) around 2004, the Defendant paid the credit card debt amount of KRW 20 million to the Defendant; and (d) the fact that the Defendant paid the deposit on behalf of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence

In addition, although the plaintiffs asserted that the payment of the deceased's lease deposit should be inferred by the instant lease contract (A No. 3), the plaintiffs' assertion on the payment of the lease deposit with only the above contract cannot be deemed to have been accepted.

Therefore, the above argument shall not be accepted.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.07.23 2014가단8438

-서울동부지방법원 2020.06.10 2018가단142149

-대전지방법원 2020.11.11 2019가단20365

-서울남부지방법원 2016.07.20 2015가단50495

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2014. 01. 03. 선고 2013가단9740 판결