(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.02 2016가단36904

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 2017.06.02 2016가단36904

임차보증금반환

Text

1. To the extent of the property inherited from the network E, the Plaintiff:

(a) Defendant B shall pay KRW 12,857,142.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

(1) On September 13, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million and the lease term of KRW 24 months from September 30, 2014, regarding the F-based F-based F-based Ground Slive Living Facilities 80.3.

(2) The Plaintiff paid the lease deposit of KRW 30 million to E.

(3) A deceased, and Defendant C and D, the wife of the network E’s co-property heir, inherited by Defendant B and A.

(4) The instant lease agreement expired.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants who succeeded to the network E are obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay each of the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 12,857,142 (=30 million x 3/7), Defendant C and D respectively (=30 million x 2/7).

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since the qualified acceptance was granted.

B. We examine the judgment, and the fact that the deceased on July 14, 2016, and the Defendants filed a report on the inheritance-limited approval with the Government District Court 2016-Ma1843, and filed a report on the inheritance-limited approval on January 12, 2017. As the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, the Defendants’ liability is limited to the scope of the property inherited from the network E. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is with merit within the scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit.

C. According to the theory of litigation, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 12,857,142 to the Plaintiff, Defendant B is obligated to pay KRW 8,571,428 to the extent of the property inherited from the network E, and Defendant C and D respectively.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2016.08.23 2016가단114672

-춘천지방법원 2015.09.09 2015가단956

-대구지방법원포항지원 2020.09.22 2020가단102318

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2018.09.18 2018가단890

-서울북부지방법원 2016.06.07 2015가단52142