beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 22,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 12, 2015 to October 28, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 22 million from December 31, 2012 to December 30, 2014 with respect to D apartment 221, Dong 301 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is owned by Defendant B (However, the instant lease agreement was actually entered into by the representative of E non-licensed Real Estate Agent’s Office on behalf of Defendant B), and transferred the down payment of KRW 2 million to Defendant C bank account in the name of Defendant B, the wife of Defendant B, and the remainder of the deposit amount of KRW 20 million on December 31, 2012 to Defendant C bank account.
B. At the time when the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff had already completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the apartment of this case, including the mortgagee, the credit union with the maximum debt amount, the maximum debt amount of KRW 553,00,000, and the debtor B.
C. On January 15, 2013 after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, registration of provisional seizure of KRW 39,910,286 was made on the instant apartment on the creditor Samsung Card Co., Ltd., and the claimed amount of KRW 39,910,286. On February 14, 2013, a decision to commence voluntary auction was made upon the application of the creditor Jeon Ho-ju Credit Cooperatives, and such registration was completed.
The non-party H was awarded the instant apartment in the said voluntary auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 6, 2013, and thereafter requested the Plaintiff to clarify the instant apartment. The Plaintiff ordered the instant apartment to H around March 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C should be dismissed on the grounds that Defendant C is not only the wife of Defendant B, a lessor under the instant lease agreement, but also the contractual entity.
However, such performance as in the instant case.