(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.12.27 2015가단121765

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.12.27 2015가단121765

공탁금출급청구권확인

Text

1. C = 16,300,000 won deposited by the Daegu District Court in gold No. 5397 of August 5, 2015.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around April 2013, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) began with Nonparty D (A) and reported marriage on April 21, 2014, and is currently pending in a divorce lawsuit with D.

B. On January 2, 2014, the sub-party C, the agent of the Plaintiff, the sub-lessee, and the agent of the Plaintiff, the agent of the sub-lessee, the period of sub-lease from January 6, 2014 to 18 months, the deposit for sub-lease is KRW 20 million, and the monthly rent is KRW 3.2 million (hereinafter “sub-lease contract”). The down payment was made on December 26, 2013, and the down payment was paid KRW 15 million on the date of the sub-lease contract.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant alleged that they were the parties to the instant sub-lease contract, and on August 5, 2015, the sub-lease C deposited the remainder of KRW 16,30,000 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) after deducting the overdue rent of KRW 3.7 million from the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the principal deposit, with the Daegu District Court No. 5397, 2015, the Daegu District Court deposited the said deposit (hereinafter “the instant deposit”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The sub-lessee of the instant sub-lease contract alleged by the Plaintiff stated as the Plaintiff, and the sub-lease deposit of the instant sub-lease is also paid by the Plaintiff, so the sub-lessee of the instant sub-lease contract is the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit is against the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion is that when concluding the instant sub-lease contract, the defendant borrowed the name of the plaintiff in the name of the defendant due to the default of national taxes, and the plaintiff was not present at the time of the contract with C, and the deposit money for sub-lease is made in the name of the head of the Tong and F (the former husband of the plaintiff and the father of the non-party D) used by the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.12 2018가단5145140

-의정부지방법원 2017.04.27 2016나54705

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.02 2015가합511601

-대구지방법원 2018.12.05 2018나309925

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.14 2018가단5227318