(영문) 대전지방법원공주지원 2019.01.31 2018가단22021

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) 대전지방법원공주지원 2019.01.31 2018가단22021

임차권 확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C by setting the deposit amount of KRW 40 million with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to Defendant C.

B. From January 2015, the Plaintiff resided in the instant real estate with Defendant B and paid KRW 200,000 per month to D as interest for the said KRW 40 million.

C. From February 9, 2017 to March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff repaid the Plaintiff KRW 20 million out of the above KRW 40 million to D, and Defendant B also repaid the remainder of KRW 20 million to D around that time.

After that, around April 1, 2017, Defendant C prepared a lease agreement with Defendant B on April 1, 201 with a security deposit of KRW 40 million and its duration period from April 1, 2017.

E. The Plaintiff, who was living together with the Defendant B on September 2018, retired from the pertinent real estate around September 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff paid to D the lease deposit amounting to KRW 20 million and has a joint lease right to the real estate of this case. However, the defendants prepared a lease contract with Defendant B as the lessee without the plaintiff's agreement and denied the status of the plaintiff's joint lessee. Thus, the plaintiff seeks confirmation as the joint lessee of the real estate of this case against the defendants.

B. The identity of the party to the judgment constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intention clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating it, and in the event that any contract is written between the parties to the contract, the terms used in writing.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.02.15 2017가합105352

-부산지방법원 2019.01.15 2018가단11028

-수원지방법원여주지원 2016.05.12 2014가단11392

-부산지방법원 2019.05.21 2018가단6873

-창원지방법원진주지원 2017.08.24 2015가단37227