logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2014.12.23 2014가단34135
부당이득금반환
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On August 22, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment”) listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant (C’s birth) (hereinafter “instant apartment”). In the process, the Defendant transferred KRW 55,00,000 to the Plaintiff in the name of wife D on August 20, 2007.

On February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E, stipulating that the instant apartment is leased between E and the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,000,000 and the period from March 24, 2012 to March 23, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and received the lease deposit in the name of the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the plaintiff prepared a lease contract with E as to the F apartment No. 803 of the F apartment No. 1 and the 803 of the F apartment No. 8, his residence in the apartment of this case on the same day, and accordingly completed the registration of the establishment of a lease on a deposit basis to E on March 23, 2012.

E had resided in the instant apartment on July 21, 2014, and transferred the instant apartment on July 25, 2014, and received KRW 57,000,000 from the Plaintiff as a deposit for lease on July 25, 2014.

[Reasons] The Plaintiff asserted that there was no dispute, Gap 1, 4, 6, 8, Eul 1, 9, 10, and 12 (including serial numbers), and that the Plaintiff borrowed 30,000,000 won, respectively, from G and H, and paid the lease deposit for the former lessee at the time of the instant sales contract, with the Defendant’s order, and thereafter borrowed money from G and H with the lease deposit received.

Even after the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant and returned the lease deposit of the former lessee to the lease deposit received. This case’s lease agreement was concluded by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, and its lease deposit is the same.

arrow