logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.08.19 2015가단118
건물명도
Text

1. Defendant A shall deliver to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. Defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 26, 2010, Defendant A leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) by December 26, 201 by setting the lease deposit of KRW 19,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 158,000, and the period of January 31, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On May 12, 2011, Defendant A borrowed KRW 15,000,00 from the Plaintiff as the due date on January 31, 2013. In order to secure the above loan obligations, Defendant A entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on May 11, 2011 to transfer the claim for return of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement with the Defendant Corporation to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”), and notified the Defendant Corporation of the said transfer on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the lease contract of this case was terminated at the expiration of the term, the defendant Gap is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the defendant Corporation at the plaintiff's request subrogated by the defendant Corporation, and the defendant Corporation is at the same time to deliver the real estate of this case from the defendant A, and the plaintiff who is the transferee of the claim to return the lease deposit, and as requested by the plaintiff, the defendant Corporation is obligated to pay the remainder after deducting all the claims it has against the defendant under the lease contract of this case

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow