(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.05.23 2017가단27176

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) 전주지방법원 2018.05.23 2017가단27176

양수금

Text

1. Defendant A shall deliver to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. Defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 17, 2004, Defendant A entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) on real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Since then, the instant lease agreement was renewed and the lease deposit was increased to KRW 13,415,000 on July 30, 2010.

B. On July 30, 2010, Defendant A borrowed KRW 9 million from the Plaintiff at the rate of 6.8% per annum on August 2, 2010 and September 29, 2010, Defendant A, on the same day, transferred the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of KRW 13,415,00 to the instant real estate as a security for the said loan claim, and notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of the claim by content-certified mail on August 2, 2010, and the notification reached the Defendant Corporation around that time.

C. Since then, the instant lease agreement is continuously renewed, and currently in force is 16,195,00 won for lease deposit, monthly rent of 9,130 won, and the term of lease from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018.

【Identification Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the claim against Defendant A, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the expiration of the period, and after the lessor was notified of the transfer of the right to return the lease deposit, the effect of the agreement cannot be affected by the assignee of the right to return the deposit, even if there is an explicit or implied agreement between the lessor and the lessee regarding the renewal of the lease contract or extension of the contract period (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253, Apr. 25, 1989), and the Defendant A is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant Corporation as the Plaintiff seeks by subrogation of the Defendant Corporation.

The obligation to pay the acquisition money to the Plaintiff and the obligation to deliver the instant real estate to Defendant A Corporation.

참조판례

-대법원 1989. 4. 25. 선고 88다카4253,4260 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.03.09 2016가단41384

-수원지방법원 2016.03.31 2015가단122774

-수원지방법원 2016.07.14 2015가단131693

-광주지방법원 2016.07.19 2016가단4742

-광주지방법원 2020.04.23 2019가단26095