(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.11.30 2018가단55805

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 평택지원 2018.11.30 2018가단55805

임대차보증금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant entered into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and registered for the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis, is the owner of Pyeongtaek-si C and the housing on its ground (hereinafter “the instant rental housing”). On April 17, 2006, the Defendant leased the instant rental housing to the Plaintiff by having Nonparty D, who is the Plaintiff’s death, and his family members, from April 17, 2006 to April 16, 2008.

On April 19, 2006, the Defendant made a registration of establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis for the instant rental house to the Plaintiff.

B. After the termination of the lease of this case and the return of the deposit, D resided in the rental house of this case with his family, and on December 2007, D requested D to return the deposit by notifying D of the termination of the lease. The Defendant approved the termination of the lease and demanded D to obtain the consent of the Plaintiff, who is the nominal owner under the lease of this case on December 27, 2017, and returned the deposit amount of KRW 40 million to D, and received the delivery of the instant rental house from D on March 3, 2008.

Since then, upon receiving a request from D to cancel the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon because the Plaintiff was entitled to receive a refund of deposit money, the Plaintiff cancelled the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon on the instant leased housing around March 12, 2008.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute between the parties or do not clearly dispute, Gap 1, 3 evidence, Eul 1 through 3 evidence (including each number), the witness D's testimony and the whole purport of pleading)

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant returned KRW 40 million to D without any authority to return the instant rental deposit to the Plaintiff as the lessee. Since the Defendant’s repayment of the rental deposit has no effect, the Defendant is obligated to refund the instant rental deposit KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff.

C. We examine whether the sales market D has the right to receive the refund of the instant rental deposit.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.12.15 2016가단63111

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.12.15 2016가단63173

-대전지방법원 공주지원 2015.01.30 2014고정67

-서울중앙지방법원 2016. 10. 20. 선고 2016노1349 판결

-수원지방법원여주지원 2017.08.29 2017가단50657