logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.20 2015가단5320902
보증금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, for the construction of national highways (hereinafter referred to as “national highway construction”) and Cheongju-gu C building and 802 (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”), with a deposit of KRW 65 million from April 26, 2014 to April 25, 2015, and paid the down payment of KRW 10 million. The remainder of KRW 5 million to be paid on April 26, 2014.

In addition, at the time, the instant building was a collateral trust to the New Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Estate Trust”), and thus, the special agreement concluded that “The present goods are a contract in a state in which the goods are covered by the New Trust and obtain the consent of the trustee until the balance is reached,” and “this contract shall be valid at the time of issuing the consent of the trustee.”

B. On April 26, 2014, upon receipt of the instant building, the Plaintiff provided the remainder of KRW 55 million for the construction of national highways. Meanwhile, on April 29, 2014, the National Highway Construction agreed to conclude a lease contract for the construction of national highways on the premise that, upon entering into a lease contract for the construction of the instant building by the Plaintiff and the National Highway, the new trust is not in a lessor’s position.” “Life trust does not bear any obligation on the premise that the new trust is not in a lessor’s position, and the lessee does not accept it, and does not make any claim related to the lease contract, such as the return of the deposit for lease.” “Life trust may dispose of the trusted real estate if it receives a request for the return of the deposit for lease from the opposing lessee and fails to comply with it, and in such case, the lease deposit shall be repaid in preference to the disposal price of the first beneficiary.”

C. Since then, the Plaintiff is above.

arrow