(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.10.17 2018가단11692

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) 대전지방법원 2018.10.17 2018가단11692

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 5,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff’s multi-family house owned by C (hereinafter “the instant multi-family house”) between September 1, 2010 and C, and the Daejeon-gu multi-family house owned by C (hereinafter “the instant multi-family house”).

1) Of the instant housing units 101 (hereinafter “instant housing”).

) A lease agreement with a lease deposit of KRW 55 million and the term of lease from September 10, 2010 to September 9, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) Article 3(1) and (4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Housing Lease Protection Act”) provides that the Housing Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Housing Lease Protection Act”) shall be effective as against the third party following the date when the lessee completes the delivery of the housing and resident registration, and the transferee of the leased housing shall be deemed to succeed to the lessor’s status in this case, and the Plaintiff completed the instant lease contract on March 7, 2011 and obtained the fixed date; the Defendant entered into a sales contract on the instant multi-family house between C and C on July 12, 2011; and the Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court) upon receipt of the registration of ownership transfer as of August 3, 2011. Meanwhile, Article 3(1) and (4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Housing Lease Act”) shall be deemed to have acquired the status of the lessor by acquiring the housing of this case from C, and thus, the Plaintiff acquired the opposing power to transfer the housing from C to the Defendant on the premise that he succeeded to the status of the lessor.

Furthermore, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed on September 9, 2012, which was the expiration date, but E, which appears to be the plaintiff's wife, returned the lease deposit to the defendant on August 20, 2012.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법 제3조 제1항

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.11.29 2018가단14325

-수원지방법원평택지원 2016.04.08 2016가단948

-대법원 2003. 7. 25. 선고 2003다2918 판결

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.05.29 2019가단100161

-서울북부지방법원 2019.11.05 2019가단133797