(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.07.25 2017가합1774

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) 서울동부지방법원 2018.07.25 2017가합1774

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 6, 2013, the Defendant leased the 1st floor of Songpa-gu Seoul building to B at KRW 8,000,000 for the lease term from August 11, 2013 to August 10, 2016; KRW 400,000 for lease deposit; and monthly rent of KRW 8,000 for rent.

B. On January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case from B, and received the delegation from B, and notified the Defendant of the transfer by content-certified mail on February 1, 2016, and the notification was sent to the Defendant on February 2, 2016.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, it is recognized that the above notice of assignment of claims has been delivered to the defendant on February 2, 2016, and the defendant also stated that "the plaintiff has received the plaintiff's notice of assignment of claims on February 2, 2016," and the defendant's assertion to the effect that "the plaintiff has not received the notice of assignment of claims on February 2, 2016," is not accepted.

C. Since August 28, 2016 to September 25, 2017, the Defendant received an order of return and assignment of the lease deposit of this case and an order of provisional attachment issued by the Defendant, a creditor of the new medicine, a new medicine, etc. as to B, as the execution creditor of the instant case.

The Defendant was handed over the instant building from B on October 11, 2017.

And on the same day, the effect of the transfer of claims is changed according to the good faith of the transferee of the claim due to the special contract prohibiting the transfer of claims for the refund of the lease deposit of this case, and the defendant is not aware of the obligee, and the above seizure and assignment order was served after the notification of the transfer of claims.

“For reasons of this, 350,947,042 remaining after deducting the overdue rent from 400,000,000 won of the lease deposit of this case.

(Seoul Central District Court No. 21204. [Grounds for Recognition] / [No. 1, 2, 5, and 6] A, entry in the evidence No. 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case from Plaintiff 2 is legitimate.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.29 2018가합574658

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.19 2016가단130552

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.25 2016가단67852

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.06.07 2017가단5226

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.08.08 2017가단6996