(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.01 2016나57452

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.01 2016나57452

추심금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The obligee: The obligee: the obligor’s claim amount of KRW 9,428,700: The obligation to seize KRW 9,700 against the Defendant: the Plaintiff, on June 2, 2015, issued a collection order for the attachment and collection of the following claims (hereinafter referred to as “instant collection order”) with respect to the lease deposit claim against the Defendant of the Gyeonggi-do Yang-gun D and 102 E (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The original copy of the instant collection order was served on June 5, 2015 on the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition” did not have any dispute, written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading of the Plaintiff was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, as the collection order of this case was issued.

C is the actual lessee who rents the instant real estate from the Defendant and operates the licensed real estate agent office at this place (C submitted a lease contract prepared with the Defendant to the head of the competent tax office upon filing an application for business registration regarding the above licensed real estate agent office). Since the collection claim of the instant collection order (C’s claim for refund of lease deposit against the Defendant), the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 9,428,700 and the delay damages therefrom.

Judgment

The fact that the collection order of this case was issued and delivered to the defendant who is the third debtor was earlier.

The evidence No. 3 cannot be used as evidence for the existence or absence of any evidence to prove the authenticity of the collection claim.

In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, C is a lessee of the instant real estate, and C is registered as a licensed real estate agent office in the instant real estate. However, although it is recognized that C is operating a licensed real estate agent office in the instant real estate, it is insufficient to recognize the above fact as a party to the instant real estate lease agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

Rather, each entry of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is written.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2021.01.14 2020가단13051

-의정부지방법원 2021.04.29 2020가단15133

-대구지방법원 2014.12.12 2014나8477

-창원지방법원 2015.06.04 2013나12321

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2021.04.22 2020가단233381