(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.12.29 2015나17668

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) 부산지방법원 2016.12.29 2015나17668

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), requested D, who is a brokerage assistant of the C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, to lease the said building at KRW 5 million as lease deposit and KRW 700,000 per month as rent.

B. On January 3, 2012, D prepared a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, stating that “The Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Defendant, without rent, KRW 50 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from January 4, 2012 to January 3, 2013, and directly received KRW 50 million from the Defendant as a security deposit.

C. On the other hand, on January 3, 2012, D: (a) arbitrarily prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff the lease contract of KRW 5 million in the instant building; (b) KRW 700,000 in the monthly rent; and (c) from January 4, 2012 to January 3, 2013, the term of lease was fixed; (b) paid KRW 5 million in the amount of money received from the Defendant to the Plaintiff as a deposit; and (c) promised that the amount of rent for eight months in the monthly rent (from January 4, 2012 to September 3, 2012) was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant was paid as the tea.

The Plaintiff received KRW 5 million from D as a deposit for lease, and delivered the instant building to the Defendant, and the Defendant occupied and used the instant building until the date of closing argument in the trial.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1, 2 and 3 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, it is limited to granting the right to use and make profits from the real estate by deception of D, and paying the money in the name of the consideration, and it cannot be deemed that the lease contract was concluded by the plaintiff and the defendant with the genuine will.

Therefore, it is special.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2019.10.17 2018나13571

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.11.10 2013가단17218

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단5277586

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.24 2019가합586269

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.28 2016나36422