logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단118353
임대차보증금
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 defendant's lease 1) The defendant's real estate stated in the attached Form (hereinafter "the instant officetel").

(2) On April 12, 2011, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C and D to the end of April 12, 2012 on the instant officetel’s deposit of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000 (on April 12, 201), and the period from April 12, 201 to April 12, 201.

3) According to the above lease agreement, monthly rent is the F’s account (G Union H; hereinafter “instant account”).

(B) On January 27, 2013, F was decided to deposit into the Defendant’s mother. (B) On January 27, 2013, the Plaintiff drafted a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from January 29, 2013 to January 28, 2014 with respect to the instant officetel at the real estate brokerage office operated D, with respect to the lessor, Defendant 45 million won, the rent of KRW 350,000 (the rent of KRW 29,000,000).

2) According to the instant lease agreement, the rent was to be deposited into the account of the I (GJ). The I is the father of D. C. The Defendant received the monthly rent of KRW 700,000 from April 12, 201 to June 21, 2018, by receiving KRW 700,000 per month from April 12, 201 to June 21, 201.

2) The remitter of the above rent entered the name of the remitter to the instant account in C. D. D. D. This was designated as follows: (a) D, while operating the real estate brokerage office, by the fact that each of the sectional owners of Ltels located in Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and acquired the deposit from the lessee by leasing it to the lessee.

2) Of the facts constituting D, the Plaintiff’s suspicion of fraud is also included in D’s crime. (E) The Defendant, knowing that the instant officetel is residing by the Plaintiff’s wife, not C, in the instant officetel, demanded delivery of the instant officetel by content-certified mail around October 2, 2018.

2 The Plaintiff around November 19, 2018.

arrow