beta
Text
1. On February 7, 2012, the building indicated in the separate sheet between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is on the self-lease agreement.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”); C was in office as the assistant pastor of the D religious organization E-association from October 1, 2008 to December 31, 201; the Defendant is in office as the assistant pastor of the said church from February 1, 2012; and F is the secretary general of the said church.
B. Around September 2008, F and the Plaintiff, representing C, concluded a lease agreement on the instant building.
(hereinafter “instant contract”) C.
C around that time, while occupying and using the instant building that was delivered by the Plaintiff, F representing C and the Plaintiff prepared a new lease agreement with respect to the instant building on September 30, 201, as follows.
(hereinafter “instant 2011 Agreement” and “the instant 201 Agreement”). The term of KRW 120,000,000 for lease deposit (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s seal”) from October 2, 201 to October 24, 201 - The exercise of lessee’s right to lease on a deposit basis is used as a vice-principal of the EIB association, and is delegated to and managed by the EIB secretary.
- Ten million won increased in the deposit money shall be deposited in the lessor on a monthly basis as of the 30th day of each month.
C transferred 300,000 won monthly to the Plaintiff’s account from October 26, 2011.
E. On February 7, 2012, the Defendant filed a move-in report on the instant building, and occupied and used the instant building from that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 7, 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. On February 7, 2012, 201, the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Plaintiff 1, as the lease contract was concluded by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is not the right holder of the right to return the lease deposit as to the lease of the building
However, if the money paid as the lease deposit is based on the withdrawal of the above church, the plaintiff is willing to return the amount of KRW 90,000,000 to the defendant.