(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.02.17 2015가단3715

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) 울산지방법원 2016.02.17 2015가단3715

채무부존재확인

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 married to C and on December 24, 2000, and moved to the underground of the instant building owned by the defendant around November 6, 2003 and received a fixed date on the same day.

B. On March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff prepared the instant lease contract with the Defendant and the Defendant leased the instant building in KRW 24 months and deposit KRW 30 million. The Defendant obtained the fixed date on May 13, 2009.

C. Meanwhile, on October 16, 2013, the Defendant agreed to divorce with C, and on January 20, 2014, it was confirmed on January 20, 2014 by the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff of the parties asserted that the defendant had resided without compensation in C and the underground space of the building of this case, who is his father and wife.

D With the trade name of "D", it is nothing more than that the Defendant, who runs the pipe sales business, prepared a false loan by assisting the Defendant to receive the lease loan with the instant lease agreement due to the lack of business funds.

It argues that there is no obligation to return KRW 30 million as stipulated in the instant lease agreement.

As to this, the Defendant paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff in 2003 as security deposit when the Defendant resided under C and the ground of the building of this case, and prepared a lease contract by consuming KRW 10 million as security deposit, and thereafter, he continued to reside under the ground of the building of this case.

In 2009, this case lease contract was prepared in order to verify the contents of the previous contract again.

Therefore, it asserts that the obligation to return KRW 30 million under the instant lease agreement exists.

B. We examine whether there is no direct evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff in 2003.

However, the above evidence is written in the evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, and 6-2.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2017.01.26 2016나1236

-수원지방법원 2017.04.25 2016가단519726

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.16 2018가단5043503

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.14 2015나18274

-대전지방법원 2017.03.23 2016가단8289