(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.12.18 2015나1920

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.12.18 2015나1920

부동산명도 등

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim against Defendant B is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 9, 2004, Defendant B leased the instant real estate from Defendant C by setting the lease term as KRW 45 million from February 27, 2004 to February 26, 2005.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On August 3, 2004, Defendant B transferred KRW 23,000,000 to the Plaintiff among the claims for the refund of lease deposit under the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “transfer of claim”) and notified Defendant C of the instant transfer on or around August 6, 2004, in order to guarantee the Plaintiff’s obligation of loans of KRW 23,000,000,000, Defendant B, his spouse of the Plaintiff. At that time, the above notification was issued to Defendant C.

C. The Defendants agreed to renew the instant lease agreement explicitly and explicitly, and each of them increased the lease deposit to KRW 58,500,000 on April 10, 2013, and KRW 90,000 on December 13, 2013, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 10-1, Eul evidence 10-2, 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Even if a lessor and a lessee have made an explicit or implied agreement with regard to the renewal of a lease agreement or extension of the term of a lease agreement after the lessor was notified of the transfer of the claim for the repayment of the lease deposit, the effect of such agreement cannot be affected by the assignee of the claim for the repayment of the lease deposit (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253, 4260, Apr. 25, 1989). Since the transferee of the claim for the repayment of the lease deposit needs to obtain the return of the deposit to the lessor after the lease agreement is terminated, the transferee of the claim for the repayment of the lease deposit can seek the delivery of the leased deposit by subrogation of the lessor, regardless of the lessor’s financial capability, for the preservation of the acquired claim.

According to the health stand and the basic facts of this case, the defendant C around August 2004.

참조판례

-대법원 1989. 4. 25. 선고 88다카4253,4260 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.29 2018가단5027730

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2017.11.28 2017가단5938

-서울서부지방법원 2019.11.15 2019가단6846

-광주지방법원 2020.04.23 2019가단26095

-울산지방법원 2018.05.23 2017가단20349