logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.08.12 2020나22249
부당이득금
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Nonparty on the deposit for lease of the Songpa-gu Seoul apartment F (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the Defendant at KRW 790,000,000, under the brokerage of Licensed Real Estate Agent D, which operates C real estate.

B. At the time of March 2, 2019, the first right to collateral security (the highest amount of claims KRW 417,600,000), the second right to collateral security (the highest amount of claims KRW 350,000), and the third right to collateral security (the highest amount of claims KRW 210,000,000) were respectively set.

C. On March 2, 2019, the Plaintiff sent KRW 5,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “the instant money”).

D On March 2, 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sent text messages with the following contents:

1. Deposit for the lease on a deposit basis: 790,000,000 won;

2. The balance date: Consultation; and

3. Payment of a down payment of KRW 5,000,000 into the account of a lessor of KRW 79,000.

4. The contract date and time shall be subject to separate consultation.

E. On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D met only for the purpose of concluding a lease agreement, and the registration of provisional attachment of KRW 3,000,000 was additionally completed on the claim amount received on March 11, 2019.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, each entry of Eul evidence 2, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. On March 2, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,000,00 to the Defendant as a provisional contract deposit in order to conclude the lease contract on the instant apartment.

However, even though the Defendant decided to cancel the second-class collective security and the third-class collective security established on the apartment of this case by the date of the contract, it did not cancel this, and it violated the contract terms, such as making the provisional attachment registration for the apartment of this case additionally completed.

Therefore, this case.

arrow