(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.21 2020나16807

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.21 2020나16807

계약금 반환 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and the appeal shall be 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 24, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendants, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 380,000,000, and from May 21, 2019 to May 20, 2021, with respect to the Housing E (hereinafter “instant Housing”) of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building D, and paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendants on the same day.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement. “The lessor actively cooperates with the lessee with the loan of the lease on a deposit basis, and the contract is reversed without any condition and the down payment shall be refunded in full.

“The grounds for recognition” (hereinafter “the instant special agreement”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) requested the Korea Appraisal Board to appraise the instant housing in order to set the standard amount of security at the lending institution that the Plaintiff visited for the loan of the lease on a deposit basis. The appraisal value is less than the deposit amount of the lease on a deposit basis.

If so, the Plaintiff’s loan was impossible, the lease contract of this case is cancelled by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case in accordance with the special agreement of this case.

2) Even if the value of the instant housing was smaller than the deposit for the instant lease, the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement by mistake that it would be possible for the Plaintiff to fully secure the entire deposit for the instant housing.

Such mistake was caused by the Defendants who set the deposit money for the lease of the instant housing, and the Plaintiff’s oral revocation of the instant lease agreement with the Defendants pursuant to Article 109 of the Civil Act, or revocation of the instant lease agreement by delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

3) Accordingly, the Defendants were either cancelled or cancelled the instant lease agreement, and thus, the Defendants jointly do so.

참조조문

-민법 제109조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.21 2020나16807

-광주지방법원 2017.08.24 2017고단2913

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.29 2020나27487

-서울서부지방법원 2017.08.29 2016가단251751