(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.05.21 2014가단53142

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 2015.05.21 2014가단53142

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 September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for the repayment of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 130 million from the non-party company to C (the former trade name: D Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”), and on September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired from the non-party company the claim for the repayment of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 80 million against the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the claim for the repayment of the lease deposit”).

B. On September 1, 2014, Nonparty Company notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The key issue of the instant case (the existence of the claim to return the lease deposit of this case, which is a claim subject to transfer)

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) : On April 30, 2001, between the Defendant and the non-party company, the non-party company is 202 of the Songpa-gu Seoul E-ground Building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the leased object of this case”).

2) As to the lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”)

(2) After entering into the lease contract and paying KRW 80 million, the Defendant was ordered to possess and use the leased object until the police officer in January 2005, but did not receive a refund of the deposit, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim for refund of the deposit for lease by the non-party company. (2) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the claim for refund of the deposit for lease. However, the Defendant merely lent the name of the title truster G as the name of the owner of the leased object as the name of the non-party company’s wife G as the representative director at the time of the non-party company’s omission, but did not sign or affix the seal on the instant lease contract

In addition, the financial account under the name of the Defendant (National Bank H) is also the account managed by Dong G, and KRW 81 million deposited on April 30, 2010 is not the instant lease deposit, but the deposit is immediately withdrawn after the deposit.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2019.07.09 2019가단203471

-창원지방법원 2017.09.05 2016나56995

-서울동부지방법원 2015.11.05 2015가단17686

-서울행정법원 2011. 11. 16. 선고 2011구합10317 판결

-울산지방법원 2014. 12. 04. 선고 2014구합537 판결