(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.10.24 2019나35128

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) 서울서부지방법원 2019.10.24 2019나35128

보증금반환

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. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, and 12 through 15, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on November 1, 2016 with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 130,000,000 and the period from November 30, 2016 to November 29, 2018; and the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 as the same day down payment to C; the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20,000 out of the remainder to C on November 29, 2016; the Plaintiff acquired the lease deposit of KRW 1,00,000 from G corporation and transferred the remainder of KRW 1,00,000 from G corporation to the Plaintiff on December 16, 2016, and the Plaintiff acquired the lease deposit and completed the registration of ownership transfer from the Plaintiff on December 16, 2016.

According to Article 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, even in cases where no registration is made, when a lessee completes the delivery of a house and the resident registration, it shall be deemed that the resident registration has been made at the time of the moving-in report (paragraph (1)), and the transferee of the leased house shall be deemed to have succeeded to the status of the lessor (paragraph (3)). Therefore, the Defendant, the new owner of the instant real estate, who is the lessee, is the lessee with opposing power, is in the status of the lessor.

On the other hand, it is apparent that the lease contract was expired on November 29, 2018, the maturity of the above lease contract, and the lease contract was terminated at that time.

I would like to say.

Therefore, as requested by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 130,000,00 to the Plaintiff at the same time as the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant sold the instant real estate by public auction, but did not demand a distribution by the Plaintiff, and C above.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법 제3조

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.05.10 2018가단241000

-의정부지방법원 2020.01.09 2019가합54351

-서울서부지방법원 2019.11.08 2019가단221973

-부산지방법원 2014.04.24 2013가단55597