(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.10.08 2015나30965

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) 창원지방법원 2015.10.08 2015나30965

임대차보증금

Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this part is that "301" is dismissed as "302" among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and that the second part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "right to neighborhood living facilities" (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") and the second part "lease" as "Lease" (hereinafter referred to as "the lease contract of this case") and the second part "Sale" as "Sale" under the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, so this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The sales contract for the instant building was concluded between the Defendant and D, and the Plaintiff raised an objection within a reasonable period of time from the time it became aware of such fact, and the Plaintiff is out of the detention of the lease relationship succeeded to.

Therefore, the lessor is obligated to return the lease deposit of this case to the Plaintiff as the lessee.

B. The Plaintiff was aware of the conclusion of the instant sales contract around December 2013 at the latest, but did not raise any objection by June 2014 (the instant filing date).

Therefore, since D, the assignee, succeeded to the status of the lessor under the instant lease agreement, and the status of the transferor as the lessor or the obligation to refund the lease deposit was extinguished, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. The judgment of this Court

(a) In cases where the lessee of a house under related Acts transfers the ownership of the leased house to a third party and the transferee succeeds to the status of the lessor, the obligation to return the lease deposit also is transferred in combination with the ownership of the real estate, and thus the status of the transferor or the obligation to return the deposit ceases to exist;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15794 Decided May 28, 2009, etc.). However, the lessee is a lessee.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 5. 28. 선고 2009다15794 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.08.23 2018나69509

-대법원 2002. 9. 4. 선고 2001다64615 판결

-대구지방법원포항지원 2020.03.24 2019가단5558

-서울남부지방법원 2020.11.19 2020가단265727