(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.03.22 2016가단8664

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) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.03.22 2016가단8664

전세보증금 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On December 24, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion C concluded a lease contract with the Defendant’s agent C on the instant building KRW 35 million with respect to KRW 303,500,000,000 per month when entering into the lease contract with respect to the instant building D ground building owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant paid KRW 35,00,000,000 as deposit for the lease contract with the Defendant’s agent C.

After that, C has received 335,00 won from the head of the Tong, but after March 18, 2016, C became aware that other tenants were residing in the building of this case, and C has escaped and locked.

The defendant shall return to the plaintiff the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff, who is in charge of the contract, sought the return of the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis under the lease contract with the Defendant. Therefore, we examine whether the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant building was effective.

The terms of the lease contract shall be in accordance with the use of the real estate after paying the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis and occupying the real estate of another person.

However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff intended to pay KRW 35 million to the Defendant as the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, and in return, intended to gain profits of KRW 335,00 per month, and did not intend to occupy the instant building and use and benefit therefrom in accordance with the purpose of the said real estate. The Defendant’s agent C also appears to have no intention to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and to have not made use and benefit therefrom. As such, the lease agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the instant building constitutes a false declaration of

Therefore, the lease deposit is established on the premise that the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was effective.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.03.22 2016가단9964

-창원지방법원진주지원 2020.12.16 2020가단3488

-수원지방법원 2017.03.23 2016가단515205

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.09 2019가합565583

-인천지방법원 2019.10.22 2018나7344