(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.19 2015가합3207

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) 수원지방법원 2017.01.19 2015가합3207

보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,031,01 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from June 16, 2006 to January 19, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 29, 2004, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the lease deposit of KRW 390 million from April 25, 2004 to April 25, 2009; (b) the monthly rent of KRW 14 million with the Defendant and the Defendant, instead of paying the said rent, the Plaintiff agreed that the Plaintiff shall pay on behalf of the Plaintiff the loan interest incurred by the Defendant to the Choung Bank (hereinafter “Seoul Bank”; and (c) directly pay the remainder of the loan except the said loan interest to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as "the lease contract of this case"). (B) The lease contract of this case is the lease contract of this case, and the deposit for the lease of this case is the lease deposit of this case.

On May 10, 2004, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 5 million on the date of entering into the instant lease agreement, KRW 30 million on May 7, 2004, and KRW 350 million on May 10, 2004.

C. On May 7, 2004, the Plaintiff set up a right to collateral security for the instant store with a maximum debt amount of KRW 390 million. D.

In purchasing the instant store, the Defendant acquired the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) with a maximum debt amount of KRW 1.885 billion on August 13, 2002, in order to secure the claim for loans against D’s interest banks, and completed the registration of modification of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) on the ground thereof.

E. He had filed an application for voluntary auction against the instant store to Suwon District Court Sung-nam support E on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in the principal and interest of loan, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant store in the said voluntary auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 15, 2006.

(D) The court below held that the court below held the auction of this case (hereinafter "the auction of this case"). The court below held that the court below did not have any dispute as to the ground for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1 through 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease contract of this case is in this case.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.04.27 2017나8762

-부산지방법원 2017.12.21 2016나9749

-서울남부지방법원 2017.01.18 2015가단220775

-수원지방법원여주지원 2017.11.28 2015가단24654

-수원지방법원 2019.11.06 2019가단510294