beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
Facts of recognition
On October 13, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 80 million from November 30, 2013 to November 29, 2015, and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 10 million on the same day.
However, at the time of lease agreement, the real estate in this case was registered as provisional disposition E by the creditor on November 3, 201, registered as provisional attachment (the claim amount to KRW 29,624,975) by the creditor E on September 5, 2012, registered as provisional attachment (the claim amount to KRW 94,741,632), registered as provisional attachment (the claim amount to KRW 94,741,632) by the creditor Yangyang Credit Cooperative on September 21, 2012, registered as compulsory commencement order against the creditor E on November 23, 2012, registered as compulsory commencement order against the defendant's share by the Gyeyang Credit Cooperative on July 25, 2013, and the defendant was merely a 1/2 equity right holder of the instant real estate, but did not notify the plaintiff of such circumstances.
The Plaintiff perused a certified copy of the real estate register after paying the down payment and confirmed the same registration as the above B, and notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the lease agreement and the return of the down payment by text message from October 14, 2013 to October 27, 2013.
(1) On November 7, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in June, 200 to the Seoul Central District Court 2014Kadan880 in the Seoul Central District Court 2014. The Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the same court (2014No474), and the Defendant was dissatisfied with the suspended sentence of two years in the same court (2014No474). According to the above facts, according to the following facts, the Plaintiff entered into a rental contract due to the Defendant’s deception, and around October, 2013, the Defendant concluded the lease contract with the Defendant.