(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.06.02 2016나112981

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) 대전지방법원 2017.06.02 2016나112981

임대차보증금 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The reasoning of this Court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

argument and Judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On August 31, 2010, the Plaintiff’s husband H set the lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by setting the deposit amount of KRW 50 million from August 31, 201 to August 30, 2012, with the entire first floor and the North direction of the second floor among the instant building, KRW 15.12m2,000,000,000 from August 31, 2010 to August 30, 2012.

(2) On August 31, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1 million in cash and the remainder of KRW 49 million on a check on March 29, 201 and paid the difference in cash.

3) On May 201, H died and succeeded to the status of the lessee of the instant lease agreement. Meanwhile, the Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant building and succeeded to the status of the lessor of the instant lease agreement on December 30, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant, who succeeded to the status of the lessor of the instant lease agreement, is obligated to pay the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000 and delay damages to the Plaintiff who succeeded to the status of the lessee of the instant lease agreement.

B. Determination 1) Whether to enter into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

However, in light of the following circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the instant lease agreement was concluded between H and D, but it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff was made a false representation for the instant lawsuit, and otherwise, that the instant lease agreement was concluded between H and D.

① The instant lease agreement has a seal affixed to D and H, but the name column of the lessor and the name of the lessee are written.

In this case, the lease contract of this case is examined.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.09.21 2016가합25649

-부산지방법원 2016.04.28 2015가단56358

-서울동부지방법원 2019.07.05 2017나23037

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.05.21 2014가합41044

-서울북부지방법원 2019.03.22 2018가단21613