logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.08 2017가단5151520
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract for the right to lease on a deposit basis for real estate (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the limit of compensation amounting to KRW 240,000,00,000 for the loan of living expenses executed by C to E in accordance with the written agreement on the business of the real estate right insurance (hereinafter “C”) as follows: (a) with respect to the loan of living expenses executed by C to E, the insurance period is from June 13, 2014 to May 18, 2016; (b) the insured is the “loss or loss arising from the invalidity or cancellation of the right of lease establishing the right of pledge; (c) the insured is a financial institution that has a preferential right to repayment to C; and (d) the Defendant is a licensed real estate agent who operates the G Licensed Real Estate Agent’s office with the office of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. (1) Around early May 2014, J, which came to know through the Internet due to loan relationship, proposed that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 4,55 million from the bank and borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the bank, using a false lease contract with respect to K Apartment L, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which was the father’s father’s H around early May 2014, and that the Plaintiff required the bank to open the door door of the apartment site in lieu of the bank employees’ visit, the Plaintiff consented to the demand by the bank employees to open the door door of the apartment site, with the family relation certificate, etc. stating H’s resident registration number, etc., and presented H’s resident registration certificate and the public official registration certificate from H, without the permission of H.

(2) On May 21, 2014, E and the under-paid person, who was instructed by the name-based loan hub M, to play a lessee’s role, visited the above brokerage office and requested the Defendant to prepare a charter contract on the instant apartment.

Accordingly, the defendant is a resident registration certificate of E and a person in poor name (hereinafter "E, etc.").

arrow