logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.03.23 2015가단48185
임대차보증금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 19, 2016 to March 23, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff occupied Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 401 (hereinafter “instant building”) and transferred KRW 35,000,000 to the Defendant on November 4, 2013.

B. Thereafter, around July 2015, the Plaintiff removed from the instant building.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 12 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff, while moving into the building of this case, paid KRW 35,00,000 to the defendant as a security deposit, he asserted that the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 35,000,000 to the plaintiff as a refund of security deposit or a return of unjust enrichment, unless the plaintiff moves out of the building of this case, and that the defendant paid the above KRW 35,000,000 to the defendant's bank account from the plaintiff's bank account to the defendant's bank account, the defendant paid the above KRW 35,00,000 to the defendant.

B. In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant on November 4, 2013. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant building was established as alleged by the Plaintiff. However, inasmuch as the Plaintiff transferred KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant as above, the Defendant is liable to return KRW 35,00,000 upon return of unjust enrichment, barring any special circumstances, to the Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, the defendant alleged that he received the above money from D, other than the plaintiff, as the repayment of the existing debt, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above money only with the entries of the evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including the serial number) and the testimony of the witness F, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In the end, the plaintiff's above assertion is reasonable and the defendant's.

arrow