(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.12.21 2016나9450 | 리걸엔진

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 2016.12.21 2016나9450

임대차보증금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. On January 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to rent the instant land at KRW 13,00,000 for the purpose of constructing a new building (hereinafter “instant land”) and the said lease deposit was paid from February 20, 201 to February 20, 201, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 13,00,00 for the lease deposit, and the rent amount of KRW 217,00 for the lease from February 20, 201 to February 20, 2016.

On July 16, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the Defendant, and accordingly the instant lease contract was terminated.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 9,745,000 for lease deposit and damages for delay, deducting the rent of KRW 3,255,00 from March 22, 2011 to July 16, 2012.

B. The plaintiff is not a party to the instant lease agreement, around the defendant, as well as D's agent.

Preliminaryly, since the instant lease agreement was entered into on a yearly basis, KRW 4,800,000,000,000, which is the rent for two years, should be deducted from the lease deposit.

In addition, 10,400,000 won for the purchase price of the instant land and taxes that the Defendant paid instead of the Defendant should be deducted or offset.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's judgment on this safety defense is not the plaintiff, since the parties to the lease contract of this case are non-party D, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff has no standing to be a party to the contract of this case, so the plaintiff's standing to be a party to the lawsuit of this case is identical in itself to the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff's right to demand performance, which is the subject matter of the contract of this case, is a person who asserts himself/herself, and the issue of whether the plaintiff is the

B. In full view of the judgment on the merits, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원여주지원 2015.04.23 2014가단12029

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.07.18 2017가단109911

-전주지방법원 2016.07.12 2016가단1368

-서울서부지방법원 2016.03.31 2015가단29889

-수원지방법원 2015.07.07 2014가단537386