logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.08.29 2016다211156
건물인도
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially admitted by the lower court, the following facts are revealed.

(1) On May 13, 2009, the Plaintiff leased 52 apartment buildings, officetels 13 households, among the instant condominium buildings, from May 13, 2009 to May 12, 2012, with the term of lease fixed from May 13, 2009 to May 12, 2012. On May 11, 2012, the Plaintiff renewed the said lease agreement on apartment 51 households, officetels 1.5 billion won, monthly rent 40 million, from May 13, 2012 to May 12, 2014.

(2) On May 11, 2012, the Plaintiff, at the time of entering into a lease agreement as of May 1, 2012, under the recognition that it is necessary to take measures to prevent legal disputes between the Plaintiff and the sub-lessee that may arise when the return of the sub-lease deposit is impossible due to the shortage of economic power, and losses incurred by the failure of the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership, etc., (Article 4). The Plaintiff took measures to ensure the return of the deposit and the sub-lease deposit received by C (C) (Article 1.1 billion won shall be kept in the deposit management account, and the deposit management account and the deposit deposit account account contract shall be entered into). The Plaintiff took measures to ensure the return of the deposit deposit (Article 4).

(3) From the beginning of May 2013 to June 15, 2011, E is investigated as to arbitrarily using approximately KRW 1.26 billion of the funds, such as the re-lease deposit, etc. of C, which it had been the representative director from May 201 to June 15, 201, and from July 2010 to July 10, 2012, F Co., Ltd (a business of sub-leaseing an officetel by leasing it in a lump sum from the Plaintiff, and E is the representative director)’s arbitrary use of approximately 1.14 billion of the funds of E.

arrow