logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.05.07 2014가합8512
임대보증금
Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 130,000,000 among the Plaintiff and KRW 26,000,000 among them, respectively, shall be KRW 39,00,000 from August 25, 2012.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 27, 2011, Defendant B purchased the instant land site C (hereinafter “instant land”) from Siung-si, and newly constructed the seven-story building on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and completed registration of ownership preservation on October 26, 2012.

B. On August 24, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B to lease a lease deposit of KRW 130 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant B the lease deposit of KRW 13 million, the intermediate payment of KRW 13 million on August 25, 2012, and the intermediate payment of KRW 39 million on September 15, 2012, and the intermediate payment of KRW 39 million on September 15, 2012, and KRW 130 million on November 15, 2013.

C. On November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to revise the terms and conditions of a lease agreement with Defendant B to the period from November 15, 2013 to November 14, 2014. However, Defendant B did not perform the obligation under the said lease agreement.

On the other hand, on September 27, 2012, Defendant Asian Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Asian Trust”) concluded a real estate security trust agreement with Defendant B, the truster, Defendant Asian Trust, and Sym Savings Bank with respect to the instant land and building, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of each trust on September 28, 2012, and on October 29, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the claim against Defendant B, the instant lease agreement was lawfully rescinded by the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint according to Defendant B’s nonperformance of obligation.

Therefore, Defendant B was paid by the Plaintiff 13.3.

arrow