logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.11.14 2017가합6800
건물인도 등 청구의 소
Text

1. On the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant),

A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C respective buildings listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3 of the real estate list.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.

The Plaintiff is each owner of the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and each building listed in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the attached Table 2 of the real estate list on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a lease agreement (No. 2-1) between Defendant B and the term of lease on the instant land and building from September 19, 2012 to September 30, 2014, with a lease deposit of KRW 10 million, and a rent of KRW 50,000,000 per month.

On the same day, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendants (hereinafter “instant loan”), and on September 20, 2012, a notary public, who set up a security for transfer on July 19, 2013, interest rate of the instant loan between the Defendants and the Defendants, 30% per annum, and on the security of Defendant B’s work, set up a notarial deed under a money loan agreement on the security for transfer (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

At present, Defendant C resides in the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] In determining the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, 8, 14 (including the provisional number), and the ground of claim as to the main claim for the entire purport of the pleadings, the lease deposit covers all the obligations of the lessee arising from the lease until the lease is delivered to the lessor after the termination of the lease.

Therefore, such obligations are naturally deducted from the deposit without a separate declaration of intention, unless there are special circumstances when the object is returned after the termination of the lease relationship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da8323, 8330, Sept. 28, 2005, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, a lease contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into on September 19, 2012, wherein the lease deposit is KRW 10 million with respect to the instant land and buildings, and KRW 50,000,000 per month (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The instant lease contract is concluded.

arrow