(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.11.16 2017나2053638

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) 서울고등법원 2018.11.16 2017나2053638

임대차보증금

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim that has been reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

Of the instant lawsuit, 94.

Reasons

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) under which the Defendant and H agreed to lease the entire ten floors of the urban residential housing located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant housing”) with the Plaintiff from October 19, 2014 to October 20, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a receipt (hereinafter “instant receipt”) stating that the Defendant received KRW 25 million from the Plaintiff as the down payment among the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant receipt”).

C. On January 6, 2015, based on the instant lease agreement, receipts, confirmation of the fact of the lease agreement, etc., the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 185 million from one bank under the credit guarantee of the Korea Housing Finance Corporation (a guarantee amount of KRW 166,500,000,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the loan of the instant lease loan”) for a lease loan, and remitted it to the Defendant.

(A) The bank did not set up a pledge on the claim to return the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement. [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap 1 through 3, 20 through 24, Eul 16, and the results of the order to submit the financial transaction information to one of the parties, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was terminated at the expiration of the lease agreement, and the Defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 185 million to the Plaintiff.

(State Claim). Even if the lease contract of this case is invalid as it falls under false declaration of conspiracy, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 185 million to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

(Preliminary Claim). (b)

The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is the case.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.08.30 2016가합75848

-수원지방법원 2020.06.09 2020가단5156

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.04.21 2015가단205415

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.13 2015가단5164812

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.03 2014가단12354