(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.01.16 2014가단25820

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) 광주지방법원 2015.01.16 2014가단25820

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally and severally with C to the plaintiff 45,000,000 won and the interest thereon from March 12, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Seo-gu Seoul Seo-gu Officetel 472 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was jointly owned by C and the Defendant, who had a legally married couple. The aforementioned C and the Defendant were judicial divorceed around November 2013.

B. On May 27, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C and the instant real estate, setting the lease term of KRW 45 million, and the lease term from May 27, 201 to May 26, 201.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”).

In the instant contract, the lessor stated that “the lessor is jointly owned (Defendant/C) at the time of the contract,” along with the statement “C and one other,” and that “the contract shall be concluded by the denying C on his behalf.”

On the other hand, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to E, a licensed real estate agent, around May 11, 2010 through December 12, 201, and paid KRW 45 million to C by paying KRW 40 million to the mother of the former lessee of the instant real estate on the date of concluding the instant contract.

E. The Plaintiff renewed the instant contract and resided in the instant real estate, and notified C and the Defendant of the termination of the instant contract on November 12, 2013, and went to Seoul around December 20, 2013 after receiving a lease registration order issued by the Gwangju District Court 2013Kaga1656 on November 20, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, witness C's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant also bears the duty to return other deposits under the instant contract for the following reasons, and the Defendant seeks payment of KRW 45 million against the Defendant.

- At the time of concluding the instant contract, the Defendant granted C the right of representation regarding the instant contract.

- The conclusion of the instant contract falls within the scope of the daily home office, and the obligation to return the deposit under the instant contract is a obligation arising from the daily home office.

- even at the time there was no authority to act for the defendant C.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.23 2017가합589790

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.13 2017가합501240

-대전지방법원 2015.04.09 2014가합103477

-서울남부지방법원 2020.06.04 2019가단24302

-의정부지방법원 2014.09.18 2014가합1024