본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대전지방법원 2014.11.06 2014가단208467

1. The defendant,

A. An annex map shall be prepared to the Plaintiff A on the second floor neighborhood living facilities of 512.75 square meters in the real estate indicated in the attached list.


1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) Real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”)

(2) On January 10, 2014, Plaintiff B owned the ownership registration. On the other hand, on April 19, 2011, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Plaintiff B, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000, KRW 1,000, KRW 1,000, and KRW 1,000,000, and KRW 200,000 from April 19, 201 to April 18, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Plaintiff B, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff B the lease deposit amount of KRW 1,2,3,4, and KRW 132,00 (hereinafter “instant lease”).

3) Plaintiff A had completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate and decided to succeed to the status of Plaintiff B’s lessor. The Defendant did not pay that amount for at least two months to Plaintiff B, a lessor, before the closure of the instant pleadings. The amount is 10,466,66 won [30,46,666 won [the sum of monthly rents from June 27, 201 to January 9, 201] calculated by deducting KRW 20,00,000,000,000 x 301,000 x 14/30,000,000 won]-20,00,000,000 won for the Plaintiff on or after October 10, 2014]. Meanwhile, the Defendant did not dispute as to the purport that the Plaintiff did not pay any evidence and evidence as to the Plaintiff’s 14,00,000 won or less.

B. According to the above facts of recognition 1, the defendant, as well as the plaintiff Eul, did not delay that the plaintiff was not less than twice a month for not less than two minutes (the defendant against this defendant, while filing a divorce lawsuit against the plaintiff Eul's wife, executed the provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the real estate in this case for the purpose of preserving the right to claim property division, and the defendant did so.