logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.07.19 2015가단530459
임대차보증금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a person who was in a marital relationship with C on July 19, 2011, and the Plaintiff and D are children of C (not the Defendant’s children), and E are the mother of C.

B. The Defendant purchased from F and G on February 7, 2013 H apartment 1, 1203, Dong-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in the purchase price of KRW 92 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant on March 22, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to I and J on January 6, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff, D, C, and E (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) have resided in the instant apartment since March 2013.

I and J filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff et al. against the plaintiff et al. on the ground that "at the time when the plaintiff et al. purchased the apartment of this case under the name of the defendant, the defendant received KRW 35 million from E at the time when the plaintiff et al. purchased the apartment of this case under the name of the defendant, and agreed to rent the apartment of this case with the above KRW 35 million as security deposit, so the plaintiff et al. has a legitimate right to occupy the apartment of this case." However, on February 4, 2015, the above court did not recognize that the lease contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff et al. on the ground that "the plaintiff et al. were insufficient to acknowledge that the lease contract of this case was concluded between the defendant et al., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it." The court below declared that "the plaintiff et al. delivered the apartment of this case to the plaintiff et al.", and the plaintiff et al. did not have any other evidence to prove that the lease contract of this case was concluded with the court below.

arrow