(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.12.16 2014가단43422

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 2014.12.16 2014가단43422

건물명도 등

Text

1.(a)

Defendant A delivers to Defendant B the real estate listed in the separate sheet to Defendant B’s House;

(b) the defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 6, 2013, Defendant A entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant Non-permanent Housing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 23,840,00, KRW 136,100, KRW 136,000, KRW 136,00, and KRW 135,00, and the lease period from March 25, 2013 to March 24, 2014.

B. On May 15, 2013, Defendant A transferred KRW 20,800,000 among the claims to return the lease deposit of this case against the Defendant Company (hereinafter “the instant claim”) to the Plaintiff to secure the existing and future loan obligations, and notified the Defendant Company of this on the same day, and notified the Defendant Company of this on the same day, and the following notice was served.

C. On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned 16,000,000 won to the Defendant on March 24, 2014 and 0.16% of the base rate for interest fluctuation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence A1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the claim against Defendant A, the instant lease agreement was terminated on March 24, 2014, and as such, Defendant A is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant Company as sought by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant Company.

(3) As the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the acquisition money to the Plaintiff and the obligation to deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant Company A to the Defendant Company simultaneously perform the obligation, the Plaintiff’s subrogation is recognized to preserve his claim for his own loans.

A. According to the above facts, the defendant company is obligated to pay KRW 20,800,000 to the plaintiff who acquired the claim of this case among the claims to return the lease deposit of this case, as requested by the plaintiff, at the same time as the transfer of the real estate of this case from the defendant A, unless there are special circumstances.

B. On this issue, the defendant company entered into the instant lease agreement.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2015.07.16 2015가단4322

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.20 2018가단5009305

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.03.06 2017가단6676

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.01.16 2017가단5727

-광주지방법원 2019.06.19 2018가단531712