(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.12.22 2015가단108369

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.12.22 2015가단108369

채권양도의사표시

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts - around April 14, 2014, the Defendant leased D Apartment 1802, 601, from C, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, D Apartment 1802, and 20 million won as lease deposit.

- On the other hand, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were married on November 201, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of divorce and division of property against the Defendant on April 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the records of evidence Nos. 4 and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff and the Defendant may acknowledge the fact that the following agreements were made around February 2015 (hereinafter the instant agreement).

(A) The Defendant’s assertion to the effect that there is no such an agreement shall not be accepted. - The Plaintiff’s remaining purchase and sale of an apartment in its name shall transfer to the Defendant the amount KRW 10 million out of the deposit received on or around March 2015.

- In lieu, the defendant transfers to the plaintiff the right to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million against C.

In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, the fact that the plaintiff deposited 14.2 million won in the national bank account in the name of Eul on March 11, 2015, and that the defendant deposited 13.0 million won in total from the above account on March 18, 2015, respectively, and that the defendant deposited 13.0 million won in the above account on three occasions.

If so, the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant agreement is fulfilled, and thus, the Defendant is also obligated to transfer to the Plaintiff the above 20 million won claim for the return of the lease deposit to C according to the instant agreement, and to notify C of the purport thereof.

B. (1) The summary of the Defendant’s argument was based on the premise that the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared a divorce between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have a divorce, and rather, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for divorce, and thus, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the implementation of the instant agreement with the Defendant.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2017.01.13 2016가단9635

-서울남부지방법원 2014.01.16 2013가합4723

-수원지방법원 2016.04.21 2015가단50442

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.22 2015가단49703

-서울남부지방법원 2019.08.16 2018나63660