logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.07.03 2018나319557
임차보증금 반환
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with F, the Defendant’s mother-friendly F, with the terms that the Plaintiff, who owned by the Defendant from the lessor, intends to lease the instant housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) by setting the deposit amount of KRW 35 million and the term of lease from December 2, 2015 to December 1, 2017.

The lessor's name of the above lease contract is affixed with a seal affixed by the defendant.

B. On December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20 million in the Defendant’s name account.

C. Meanwhile, between E and June 29, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant housing by setting the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, the term of lease from June 29, 2012 to June 30, 2013.

After that, as a result of the voluntary auction procedure for the housing of this case to Busan District Court Dong Branch G, E is deemed to have received a dividend of KRW 19 million as the lessee in the distribution schedule prepared around March 2017.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 2, Eul 3, 4, and 5, each entry of Gap 1, some entry of Gap 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement on the instant housing with F on behalf of the Defendant, and paid F a cash of KRW 8 million on November 5, 2015, cash of KRW 7 million on December 2, 2015, and paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s account on December 2, 2015. The instant housing was transferred by sale through voluntary auction, and the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 35 million to the Plaintiff as a lessor, and the Defendant did not have concluded a lease agreement on the instant housing and delegated the Defendant’s mother’s mother’s conclusion of a lease agreement.

E As to the instant housing with the Defendant.

arrow