(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.05.28 2014가단17186

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.05.28 2014가단17186

양도대금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 29, 2011, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Land and Housing Corporation”) on the lease deposit of KRW 67,00,000, and KRW 410,000,000, the monthly rent of the building No. 719, Dong 104 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On August 14, 2013, the Defendant purchased the D Apartment No. 603, 301, and completed the registration of ownership transfer. On January 14, 2014, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract was terminated as of December 31, 2013, since the Defendant acquired the ownership of the said house and concluded the renewal contract due to a cause not to conclude the instant lease contract.

C. On March 6, 2014, the Defendant received payment of KRW 57,416,210 remaining after deducting the unpaid rent, unpaid management expenses, restoration expenses, etc. from the rental deposit amount of KRW 67,00,00 from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation due to the termination of the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 6, 7 evidence, Eul's 1 to 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that E entered into a lease transfer contract with the content that he takes over the lessee status of the instant lease contract from the defendant, and the plaintiff took over the status of the assignee of the lease transfer contract again from E. The plaintiff was terminated due to the non-performance of obligation, such as the defendant's separate acquisition of apartment house, and thus the defendant's obligation was impossible. The plaintiff asserts that since the contract was cancelled by delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, the defendant is obligated to return 50,000,000 won paid to E to the plaintiff as restitution.

B. Acceptance of a contract with the intention to succeed to the status as a contracting party is generated from the contract.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.04.15 2014나46010

-서울서부지방법원 2018.01.09 2017나34459

-광주지방법원 2017.12.01 2017나56413

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.26 2015나11747

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2020.08.11 2020가단765