logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.08.17 2018나203884
보증금반환
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim (including the part extended from the trial) is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C on March 4, 2011, leased D Apartment 511 Dong 403 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, Osan-si, Osan-si, a rental house.

B. On June 6, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sublease contract (hereinafter “instant sublease contract”) with F on the condition that the instant real estate will be leased to KRW 88,00,000,000, and paid KRW 88,000,000 to C.

C. The lease agreement on the instant real estate between the Korea Land and Housing Corporation and C was cancelled on June 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) concluded the instant sub-lease contract and came to know that the instant sub-lease contract was concluded against Article 19 of the former Rental Housing Act, and demanded F to terminate the instant sub-lease contract and refund the deposit.

In the process, the Plaintiff was a person who lent only the name of the lessee of the instant real estate to the Defendant, and the actual lessee of the instant real estate was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was an investor.

Therefore, the parties to the sub-lease contract of this case are not C but Defendant.

② Even if the instant sublease contract was concluded with C, the Defendant ratified the instant sublease contract.

③ On February 25, 2015, the Defendant entered into a new agreement with the Plaintiff to return deposits under the instant sub-lease contract.

④ Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the deposit KRW 88,00,000 under the instant sublease contract and the delay damages for the said amount.

B. On the premise that the Defendant is a party to the instant sub-lease contract, the Plaintiff is seeking the return of the deposit under the premise that the Defendant is a party to the instant sub-lease contract.

The above evidence is examined.

arrow