(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.28 2014나9479 | 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) 수원지방법원 2015.10.28 2014나9479

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) prepared a “house lease contract” with the content that the Defendant, a real estate broker, and the selector, as a broker D, intend to lease the second floor of the building located in Heung-gu E (hereinafter “instant leased object”); and (b) paid the down payment of KRW 6,000,000 to the selector C on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The main contents of the instant lease agreement are as follows.

A rental deposit: Article 6 from July 31, 2012 to July 31, 2014: The lessor or the lessee may rescind the contract by giving written notice to the person who has failed to perform the contractual terms and conditions in the event that the contractual terms and conditions are not fulfilled.

In addition, the parties to the contract may claim damages for the cancellation of the contract respectively to the other party, and the contract deposit shall be considered as the basis for damages, unless otherwise agreed.

Special terms: The current building is permitted as a neighborhood living facility, and the lessor is a lease contract with the studio studio, and the lessee is aware of it and the lessee does not raise any objection thereto.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant, etc.”) known well that the leased object of this case was illegal buildings not registered at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, and that the lending of the lease fund is impossible due to this, the Defendant and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant, etc.”) did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact, but rather did it.

B. The Plaintiff intended to pay the lease deposit with the loan of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, but the object of the lease in this case is not registered.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.16 2020나48125

-수원지방법원 2019.06.21 2018나92738

-서울북부지방법원 2015.12.03 2015고단2769

-서울북부지방법원 2016.12.15 2016가단8715

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.21 2020나16807