logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.06.15 2016가단13250
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D (hereinafter referred to as “D”), the actual representative of which is the Defendant’s husband, and paid KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000 won for the lease deposit, monthly rent, and the lease period from May 22, 2014 to May 21, 2016, and the lessee’s name entered into a lease agreement with D (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”), and thereafter, paid KRW 150,000,000,000,000 for the lease deposit to D.

On May 21, 2014, H Co., Ltd., a de facto representative of the Defendant (hereinafter “H”) completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage over the debtor H, mortgagee G, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million with respect to the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case as the secured debt to G, and the land and the HMoel on one parcel of land (hereinafter “HMoel, etc.”) owned by G, and the debtor H, mortgagee G, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million.

On November 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract to change the name of the lessee under the instant lease agreement with D to the Plaintiff’s wife (hereinafter “instant contract”). On December 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the lessee as L for the lease deposit of KRW 150 million, monthly rent of KRW 8 million, and the term of lease from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

M on November 12, 2014, with regard to the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case as the secured claim, M completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over the amount of KRW 150 million to the debtor C, the mortgagee, the plaintiff, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 150,000,000,000 for 2/3 of the land and N-ground buildings owned by M as M to the plaintiff.

In addition, on November 14, 2014, G cancelled the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment in the name of G.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap's 4, 5, 8, 9, Eul's 2, 5, and 6, and the plaintiff's whole purport of pleading.

arrow