(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.09.02 2016가단5479

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) 광주지방법원 2016.09.02 2016가단5479

전세금반환

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay 35,00,000 won to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from March 12, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 23, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to lease approximately 110 square meters of the first floor among the buildings owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) with the lease deposit of KRW 35,00,000, and the period from September 26, 201 to September 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. The instant lease contract concluded as the Defendant’s agent the Defendant’s external village D and the Defendant’s mother.

C. The Plaintiff’s KRW 2,00,000,000 to E on July 23, 2011, and the same year

9. The amount of KRW 35,00,000,000 in total, including around 26.26.33,000,000,00 shall be paid as lease deposit and for the same year.

9. Around 26.26. Around October 2015, he/she occupied and used the instant building under delivery from E and returned the said building to E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 4 and 6 as to the main lawsuit, the defendant is recognized as delegated the authority to conclude a lease agreement on the building of this case to D and E.

Therefore, the instant lease agreement is valid, and the Defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit of KRW 35,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from March 12, 2016 (the day following the delivery of the complaint in this case) to the day of complete payment.

Even if there was no authority to conclude the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant D and E, according to the purport of the entire statement and pleadings made by the Defendant’s legal representative on the date of pleading, the Defendant did not assert the invalidity of the said lease agreement or request the Plaintiff to withdraw from the said building for at least two years from the time when the Plaintiff became aware that the said lease agreement was concluded and the Plaintiff was residing in the instant building.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2016.08.09 2015가단51574

-대전지방법원천안지원 2014.12.09 2014가단104588

-서울북부지방법원 2018.12.12 2018나31314

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.06.19 2018가단659

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.05.26 2016가단853