(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.01 2018가단543556

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) 수원지방법원 2019.05.01 2018가단543556

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 75,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 21, 2009, the Defendant leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 43,203,00,000 from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant leased real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On July 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sub-lease contract with the Defendant’s former wife E, indicating that the Defendant is the representative of the Defendant, which sets the rental real estate of this case from July 13, 2014 to July 12, 2016, and set the deposit amount of KRW 75 million for the sub-lease (hereinafter “sub-lease contract”) and paid KRW 70 million out of the deposit for sub-lease to E, and the remainder of KRW 5 million to the former lessee F.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The gist of the party’s assertion has terminated on July 12, 2016 by the expiration date of the instant sub-lease contract, and if the instant leased real estate was delivered to the Defendant on the same day, the Plaintiff sought payment of the instant sub-lease deposit and damages for delay.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff entered into a sub-lease contract with E, a substantial tenant of the leased real estate of this case, and that the sub-lease contract of this case does not have the authority to enter into a sub-lease contract on behalf of the defendant.

3. Determination

A. According to the following facts, upon considering whether E has the authority to act for the defendant, and the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the defendant has gained economic effects as a substantial lessee or sub-lease while acting on the premise that the lease contract of this case or sub-lease contract concluded as the defendant's representative is valid. In light of such circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant granted E the authority to sublease the leased real estate of this case.

1. The defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.09.06 2015나34243

-의정부지방법원 2014.06.13 2013나6729

-부산지방법원 2017.02.15 2016나2304

-서울동부지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가합1395

-인천지방법원 2014.12.17 2014나11543