(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.07 2015가단5098601

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.07 2015가단5098601

보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, KRW 10,000,000 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on July 14, 2007, setting a deposit of KRW 10 million and monthly rent of KRW 650,000 with respect to the apartment of this case owned by the Defendant, and that the said deposit was paid between the parties concerned.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that, like on July 1, 2009, the monthly rent was reduced to KRW 40,000,000 on behalf of the Defendant C, and that the said lease was terminated as a delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, and that the said lease was sought to return KRW 50,000,000 in total of the deposit amount.

However, C received the above KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s representative at the time of receiving the above KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff.

There is no evidence to see that the Defendant granted C the power of representation, and rather, according to each of the evidence Nos. 3 (cash Storage Certificate) and No. 2 (Judgment) as to the apartment of this case, C merely can be recognized that the apartment of this case was in fact by deceiving the Defendant as one’s own ownership and received the above KRW 40 million in its own name.

3. Even if the Plaintiff believed to have the right of representation of the Plaintiff to C, in light of the circumstances described in the preceding paragraph, C represented the Defendant at the time of concluding the first lease agreement as the Defendant’s partner.

The mere fact that the Plaintiff was running real estate brokerage business cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff had such business.

4. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant accepted 2.5 million won monthly rent from the plaintiff on the premise of the above increase of deposit, and thus, the plaintiff ratified the increase of deposit through C. However, there is no evidence that the plaintiff knew that the above increase of deposit was made and received only the reduced rent.

5. If so, the Defendant terminated the instant lease contract after the lapse of 3 months from the Plaintiff’s notice of termination.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2015.04.30 2014나33752

-서울서부지방법원 2015.04.23 2014나5863

-부산지방법원 2019.05.29 2018나46520

-광주지방법원순천지원 2019.01.10 2017가단79247

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.05.09 2017가단267