logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.07.19 2015나35148
보증금반환
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 4, 2005, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer made on October 26, 2005 with respect to the multi-family house A, Dong, Si, Busan (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On December 10, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D as to subparagraph 304 of the building of this case with the lessor, the Defendant, the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million, and the term of lease from December 28, 2009 to December 27, 2010, and paid the lease deposit of KRW 25 million to D around December 28, 2009.

C. As above, the Plaintiff: (a) entered into a lease agreement with D, claiming that he/she is the Defendant’s agent on March 1, 201; (b) as to subparagraph 204 of the instant building; (c) the lessor, the Defendant, the lease deposit 25 million won; and (d) from March 1, 2011 to February 28, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); (c) around that time, the Plaintiff was a director of the instant building 204; (d) the lease deposit 25 million won was paid under the lease agreement as of December 10, 209.

On December 29, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) as a director at another place; (b) notified the Plaintiff of the fact; and (c) requested the return of the deposit; and accordingly, (d) returned the Plaintiff KRW 5 million on March 25, 2013; (b) KRW 15 million on April 15, 2013; and (c) KRW 20 million on January 7, 2014 on March 7, 2014.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 7, 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's 4 and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 as to the instant building D was granted from the Defendant all the power of representation regarding the conclusion of a lease agreement and the receipt of a deposit for lease on the instant building. Therefore, the lease on the instant building 204 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is valid.

arrow