beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 25,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 2, 2013 to December 10, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a lease contract on D and residential buildings, and the content thereof is that Defendant B, as a lessor, leases a residential building (No. 3 Dong Dong Dong 402, hereinafter “instant house”) with a lease deposit of KRW 25 million, and the period from October 24, 2012, with a lease deposit of KRW 25 million for the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 25 million in total, including KRW 20 million on October 24, 2012, and KRW 5 million on October 25, 2012, with the deposit account in the name of Defendant C, the birth partner of Defendant B, Defendant C.
C. On October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff completed a move-in report for resident registration with the instant house.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1-3, 10, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff as the representative of the Defendants, and the subsequent lease agreement was terminated upon the termination of the agreement, the Defendants are obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.
② Even if there was no right of representation for the execution of a lease agreement with D, the Defendants granted D the right to manage the building on behalf of the Defendants, and the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with D believed that D had the right to conclude a lease agreement based on the building management right and paid the lease deposit. As such, the Defendants shall be held liable for D’s act in accordance with Article 126 of the Civil Act.
B. The Defendants’ assertion (1) is merely a person in charge of cleaning the building including the instant housing, and there is no authority to do a legal act on behalf of the Defendants, and the Plaintiff cannot assert the rights under a lease agreement entered into with D with D to the Defendants.
(D) Since not only the authority to enter into a lease agreement on behalf of the Defendants, but also there was no other authority to do so, liability under Article 126 of the Civil Act is not recognized.
(3) The plaintiff is not an ordinary tenant but a debtor for credit security.