(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.08.17 2017나533 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2017.08.17 2017나533

임대차보증금반환 등

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. Basic facts

A. On August 28, 2013, the Defendant leased the instant building from the owner D of the instant building by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, and the lease term from August 28, 2013 to August 27, 2015.

Around that time, the Defendant paid the lease deposit to D, and received the instant building from D, and had been living in the instant building up to now.

B. On October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D agreed to change the lessee of the above lease to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff as the lessee of the building of this case newly prepared the lease contract with the Plaintiff as the lessee of the building of this case.

C. On October 14, 2015, the lessor C acquired ownership of the instant building, and succeeded to the lessor’s status as to the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in paragraph (1) of the determination on the cause of the claim, the status of the lessee under the lease agreement on the instant building was transferred from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the co-defendant C of the first instance trial was implicitly renewed.

However, it is evident that the duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s intention to terminate the lease agreement, was served on the co-defendant C in the first instance trial on June 1, 2016, and the above lease agreement was terminated on September 1, 2016.

Therefore, the co-defendant C of the first instance court is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and in this case, the Plaintiff claims by subrogation of co-defendant C of the first instance court in order to preserve the claim for the refund of the lease deposit, the Defendant, who currently occupies the instant building, has the duty to deliver the instant building to the co-defendant C,

B. On the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D are related to the instant building.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2014.12.12 2014나3809

-수원지방법원 2015.11.25 2015나1816

-부산지방법원 2019.01.08 2018가단320647

-창원지방법원 2020.08.20 2019나55474

-인천지방법원 2015.08.13 2014나56676