(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.30 2014가단166946

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.30 2014가단166946

배당이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a lease agreement of KRW 25 million, monthly rent of KRW 25 million, and KRW 250,000,000,000 for the lease deposit and KRW 1101,00 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and completed the said lease agreement until the fixed date and the move-in report on December 19, 2013.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 8(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Articles 3 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 25036, Dec. 30, 2013), the Plaintiff is entitled to preferential payment of KRW 25 million to the extent of the Plaintiff’s assertion under the principle of pleading. However, the Plaintiff is determined only within the scope of the Plaintiff’s assertion under the principle of pleading.

the distribution schedule of this case prepared without the plaintiff, even though it is possible to receive a dividend of this case is unfair.

2. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff has a claim for the refund of KRW 25 million in the lease deposit with respect to the apartment complex of this case by itself, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, without further review, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings as to each of the items of Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 5-2.

- In light of the fact that the owner of the apartment of this case and the lessor, who is the owner of the apartment of this case and the lessor of this case, are closely related to the affinity's husband, it seems that the lease contract of this case (A No. 1) prepared without a broker can be prepared voluntarily, and as long as the above lease contract was made, the voluntary auction procedure regarding the apartment of this case began - at the time when the plaintiff entered into the lease contract for the apartment

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법 제8조 제1항

-주택임대차보호법 시행령

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2015.05.22 2014가합34881

-인천지방법원 2014.08.20 2013가단85003

-창원지방법원 2016.08.30 2015가단23768

-서울북부지방법원 2014.05.09 2014가단102637

-수원지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가단53031