logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.02.17 2015나57607
기타(금전)
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. On October 26, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the real estate D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on behalf of the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1100,000,000 for a period of two years. The Defendant did not pay the rent of KRW 17.8 million as of April 30, 2014, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said KRW 17.8 million to the Plaintiff.

Even if C did not have the right of representation, the Defendant should be held liable for the unpaid rent as the nominal lender, as C lends his name to C and let C conduct a business on the above land.

2. In full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment; (b) there is no evidence from Gap’s 1 to 10 (including household numbers); and (c) the witness witness Eul’s testimony at the trial on October 26, 2010, the plaintiff entered into a lease contract with Eul on behalf of the defendant on October 26, 2010 for a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1100,000,000 for a period of two years (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); (c) the defendant was the husband’s bad credit; (d) around April 5, 2007, the defendant was the husband’s trade name as “E”; (c) the actual operation of E was mainly conducted by Eul; (d) the sealed “E Company B” may also be used at all times; and (e) it is reasonable to deem that the defendant entrusted the right to enter into a contract necessary for the operation of E to Eul, and (e) the defendant may be found unpaid to be at least KRW 106,8.

Therefore, inasmuch as the instant lease agreement was concluded between C and the Plaintiff who lawfully represented the Defendant, the Defendant, as a result of a dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from May 1, 2014, which was sought by the Plaintiff, around September 26, 2013, as the unpaid rent of KRW 17.8 million to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act, from May 1, 2014 to February 17, 2016, which is the date on which the Defendant rendered a final judgment.

arrow