logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.13 2019가단10499
공탁금출급청구권 확인 청구의 소
Text

1. Between the Plaintiff and Defendant C, deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 8794 on April 24, 2004 6,254.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 25, 2002, Defendant C borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, and repaid it on October 23, 2002. On the same day, Defendant C borrowed KRW 20 million, but repaid it on February 18, 2003. On the same day, Defendant C borrowed KRW 20 million and repaid it on June 4, 2003, and then again borrowed KRW 20 million on the same day.

B. On April 4, 2003, Defendant C entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant C on the condition that Defendant C’s 2nd floor G of the F building in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City was leased KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.9 million, and from April 13, 2003 to April 13, 2004 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. In order to secure the above loan obligation against the plaintiff, the defendant C held the claim for the refund of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million according to the lease agreement dated August 15, 2002 on the second floor G of the F Building in Jung-gu, Seoul, and on June 5, 2003, transferred the above lease deposit return claim to the plaintiff and notified the transfer of the claim to E.

On August 27, 2003, Defendant C transferred to Defendant D the claim to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million under the instant lease agreement, and notified the transfer of the claim to E on August 28, 2003.

E. Upon the expiration of the term of the instant lease agreement, E intended to refund the lease deposit upon the expiration of the term of validity, but, on April 24, 2004, deposited KRW 6,254,990 after deducting the overdue rent, public charges, management expenses, etc. from the instant lease deposit from the Seoul Central District Court in 2004, on the grounds that it is unclear that the notification of the transfer of claims or the provisional seizure order against Defendant C including the Plaintiff and Defendant D was served by the creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C: Statement of confession (Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant D: The fact that there is no dispute, and the evidence A 1 through 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

arrow