(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.03.26 2014나15895

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) 대전지방법원 2015.03.26 2014나15895

추심금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All the plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim added at the trial.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

C On March 3, 2009, with the Defendant, part of the first floor (hereinafter “instant building”) from among the buildings located in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, the lessor, lessee E, and lessee’s agent C, the lease deposit KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, and the term of the contract from March 5, 2009 to March 4, 2014 (hereinafter “the lease under the said lease contract”), and the lessee operates Schlage in the instant building until now.

On June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) received a decision of provisional seizure of claim against C regarding KRW 10,000,000 of the lease deposit against the instant building that C shall receive from the Defendant as the Daejeon District Court 2013Kadan4113 on June 14, 2013; and (b) such decision was served on the Defendant around that time.

On April 8, 2014, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the seizure and collection of the above provisional seizure from Daejeon District Court 2013Gau33660, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with executory power over the claim for loans, which was issued by the Daejeon District Court 2014 Tau4684. The order was served on the Defendant around that time.

[Reasons] The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, and Eul’s evidence No. 8, and the lessee of the lease of this case asserted by the Plaintiff as to the claim for collection of the purport of the entire pleadings. The Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to KRW 10,000,000, which is paid by the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000.

Since the lessee of the lease of this case asserted by the defendant is E, the defendant does not bear the obligation to return the lease deposit to C.

Even if C is a tenant, the lease deposit was deducted from unpaid rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to rent and terminated all.

Judgment

The building of this case, even if C, is the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.04 2018가단5173459

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.11.28 2018가단7159

-수원지방법원 2020.07.14 2020가단502237

-대전지방법원 2017.11.21 2017가단203302

-대전지방법원 2016.06.10 2015나103621