(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.05.08 2019가단113635 (1)

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) 의정부지방법원 2020.05.08 2019가단113635 (1)

보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 136,50,000 won with 15% per annum on May 31, 2019, and shall pay to the plaintiff full payment from the following day.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the following facts can be acknowledged.

On March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to lease the instant building from the Defendant, the owner of the C Building D (hereinafter “instant building”) at Silung-si, and concluded a lease agreement with the term of lease from April 3, 2017 to April 2, 2019, with the term of lease as KRW 130 million.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff was handed over the instant building by paying the lease deposit by April 3, 2017.

C. On May 4, 2018, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of E was completed on the instant building.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of E on the instant building is null and void as it is based on a contract title trust or bilateral title trust agreement with the seller’s bad will. Thus, the ownership of the instant building still exists to the Defendant.

B) Preliminaryly, even if the ownership of the instant building was transferred to E, since the instant lease contract was terminated by raising an objection within a considerable period of time from the time the Plaintiff, a lessee, becomes aware of the transfer of ownership, and thus, the Defendant still bears the obligation to return deposit under the instant lease contract. (2) According to the statement in the evidence No. 14 of the validity of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of E, the sales contract for the instant building can be acknowledged according to the judgment on the primary cause of claim A, based on

However, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with father F, and E is the fact that he did not participate in the contract, and even if the evidence No. 17 was written, E was not aware of the sales contract of the instant building.

If so, the title trustee is not the title trustee, but the title truster under the contract.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.09 2016가단5296075

-울산지방법원 2018.05.17 2017나2632

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.01.16 2012가단46357

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단5205666

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.07.08 2019가단12834