(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.09.15 2014가단9481

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) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.09.15 2014가단9481

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay 22 million won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from December 28, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the owner of the house indicated in the attached list, and C is the person who has been in charge of the affairs such as management of the house.

B. On September 20, 2012, the Plaintiff claimed that he/she is the Defendant’s agent, determined 303 houses (hereinafter “instant houses”) among the houses listed in the attached Table as indicated in the attached Table as KRW 22 million as lease deposit and from September 20, 2012 to August 31, 2014, and leased (hereinafter “instant lease”) (hereinafter “instant lease”), and paid KRW 22 million as lease deposit to C.

C. The instant lease agreement had expired on August 31, 2014, and the Plaintiff completed the lease registration on the instant housing on September 15, 2014.

The Plaintiff delivered the instant house to the Defendant.

C was indicted due to the fact that the Defendant was entrusted with the authority to enter into a lease (monthly) contract (hereinafter referred to as "monthly contract") with multiple lessees and acquired the deposit money for lease (hereinafter referred to as "charter contract") with regard to the housing listed in the attached list, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it was sentenced to a judgment of conviction by the court as the court 2014Kadan28.

E. A number of lessees who concluded a lease contract on the house indicated in the separate sheet between C and C have won a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit claiming the return of deposit against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with C, a representative of the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff upon the termination of the instant lease agreement.

Even if the agent C is not authorized to conclude a lease contract on behalf of the Defendant, the Defendant may conclude a monthly lease contract on the instant house with C.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2014.10.16 2013나19050

-청주지방법원 2020.11.19 2020고정379

-부산지방법원 2017.07.19 2017고단2342

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.14 2017가합39349

-창원지방법원 2020.08.27 2019나61417