logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가단56634
추심금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted as to the cause of the claim was served on July 7, 2014 on the Defendant, upon receipt of the claim attachment and collection order issued by Suwon District Court 2014TTT14487, with respect to the claim for the return of the lease deposit against Suwon-si D ground housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) which C had against the Defendant, and the said original copy was served on the Defendant on July 7, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above collection amount.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, C, the owner of the instant house, entered into a lease contract with the Defendant on February 4, 2002, and completed a move-in report after moving into the instant house on the same day, and the voluntary auction procedure for the instant house was commenced with the Suwon District Court E, which was held by the mortgagee higher than C, and C, at the auction against F, did not make a lawful demand for distribution, and thereby did not receive any distribution from the proceeds of the sale.

Article 3-5 of the Housing Lease Protection Act shall be extinguished by the successful bid of the leased house where the leased house is sold by auction under the Civil Execution Act.

Provided, That this shall not apply to the right of lease with opposing power, for which all deposits are not repaid.

Therefore, the above right of lease is not extinguished by a successful bid of the house of this case, and the above right of lease is succeeded to the successful bidder, and the defendant, the former lessee, extinguished the lease deposit obligation against C (see, e.g., Articles 3(4) and (5) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da21166, Feb. 10, 2006). The plaintiff's assertion on other premise is without merit, and the defendant's defense pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is not reasonable.

arrow