logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.09 2015나22337
건물인도
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the defendant's assertion added in the trial and its judgment as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. 1) The agreement between the Plaintiff and B concluded in March 2014, 2014, on the ground that the Plaintiff assumed the obligation to return the sublease deposit to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is obligated to return the sublease deposit to the Defendant.

B) The representative director D, who was subject to criminal punishment due to the suspicion of embezzlement of the sub-lease deposit, etc., around July 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) consented to the sub-lease of B or received the sub-lease deposit with the knowledge of the use of the sub-lease deposit of D; and (b) has a duty under the principle of good faith to explain that the sub-lease contract is valid only within the lease term of B; (c) even though the lessee failed to perform such duty and did not intend to renew the sub-lease contract with B, it was approved the sub-lease contract with the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant’s tort liability against the Defendant was established by forcing B, etc. to impliedly compel B to waive the obligation to return the sub-lease deposit to the Defendant to prevent the simultaneous performance of the sub-lease or the exercise of the creditor’s right of subrogation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff bears the obligation to return the sub-lease deposit to the Defendant, and thus, cannot deliver the real estate of this case from the Plaintiff to the time of refund of the sub-lease deposit.

The plaintiff in violation of the principle of good faith did not take measures to protect the sub-lessee, who is the economically weak, while taking economic benefits under a lease agreement with B.

arrow