logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.02.18 2012가단4761
임차보증금반환
Text

1. Defendant D’s KRW 50,000,000 per annum from January 30, 2012 to August 1, 2013, and the following:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties is that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E (the co-defendant of this case, but the judgment was finalized after being tried separately on August 21, 2013) and Defendant D on the G Building 712 located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “the instant officetel”), and the person who was acquired a lease deposit is the person who alleged to be a lessee who entered into a lease agreement with respect to the instant officetel, and Defendant B is the person who argued to be a lessee who entered into a lease agreement with respect to the instant officetel, and Defendant D is a licensed real estate agent for whom the judgment became final and conclusive after having been sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with labor for criminal facts such as

B. (1) On January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff, at the I Licensed Real Estate Agent Office of the Defendant D located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul on January 8, 2010, explained that “The instant officetels is only in the name of father J as a matter of his own ownership or tax.”

(2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff confirmed the power of delegation that “J delegates the whole rent management of the instant officetel to Defendant D” and completed a lease agreement with Defendant D on January 30, 2010 with respect to the instant officetel as the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000 from January 30, 2010 to January 29, 2012, and paid to Defendant D the deposit amounting to KRW 50,000,000 and KRW 50,50,000,000,000,000 for monthly rent of KRW 50,000 from January 30, 2010.

(3) However, the facts revealed that, without properly verifying the relationship between E and J and the authenticity of the power of attorney, Defendant D acted as if all the relationship between E and J were confirmed, and delivered E the remaining money after deducting the deposit and the fee from the deposit for lease to its own account.

(4) Meanwhile, regarding the instant officetel around October 14, 2008, the transfer of the instant lease agreement, as to the instant officetel.

arrow