(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.10.07 2015나55862

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 2016.10.07 2015나55862

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff and its related costs from March 20, 2015.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On May 22, 2000, E, the Plaintiff’s birth, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division on March 7, 2000, with respect to the instant housing, which was located in D on May 22, 200 and the 94.86 square meters of a single-story roof housing (hereinafter “instant housing”). The Defendant, the wife, together with the Defendant, resided in the instant housing.

E Deceased on February 14, 2004, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant housing on April 2, 2004, together with F and G, which are children, on April 2, 2004.

On the other hand, around March 30, 2004, regarding part of the first floor of the instant housing, a lease agreement with the lessor, the lessee, the Plaintiff, and the lease term from March 30, 2004 to March 29, 2006 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings was lent KRW 70,00,000 to Dong Jae-in around January 14, 2004.

After the death of E, the Defendant demanded the return of the above KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant prepared the instant lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff in lieu of the lease deposit.

After that, the plaintiff left the house of this case while residing in the house of this case, and requested the defendant to return the above KRW 70,000 on several occasions.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 70,000,000 as the lease deposit according to the termination of the lease contract of this case.

In addition, even if the lease contract of this case is not valid as preliminary, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 70,000,000 as the loan according to the monetary loan contract that was concluded between the plaintiff and E.

Around January 14, 2004, there was no fact that the Plaintiff leased KRW 70,000,000 to E or entered into a lease agreement on the instant housing with the Defendant.

The lease contract of this case is.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.05.29 2017가단733

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.10 2017가단211671

-서울서부지방법원 2018.06.01 2017나40416

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.19 2016가단5223497

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.09.04 2013가단18984