logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가단145161
임대차보증금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff

A. Defendant B and C respectively KRW 18,000,000 and Defendant C with respect thereto from August 17, 2014, and Defendant C.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) between Defendant B and C as KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,000,000, and the period from June 20, 2012 to June 19, 2013.

(At the time, the husband E and the defendant C entered into the contract, and only the defendant B entered into the contract as the lessee).

After all, the Defendants did not pay the monthly rent, and after August 5, 2013, Defendant D occupied and used the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case is deemed to have been terminated upon the expiration of the period, Defendant B and C, the lessee of the real estate of this case, shall pay to the Plaintiff 18,00,000 won [48,000 won (2,00,000 x 24 months x 24 months)]- deposit money 30,000,000 won after deducting the lease deposit from the sum of the rent in arrears as of June 20, 2014, which is the lessee of the real estate of this case, and the Defendant B, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case against the above Defendant, from August 17, 2014, which is the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to October 3, 2014 to the day of complete payment, each of the lessees and lessees of this case shall be paid the amount of unjust enrichment of this case to 00,000 won.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the above Defendant asserted to the effect that the above Defendant’s husband lent KRW 30,000,000 to E, while securing this, the Plaintiff entered himself in the building lease agreement of this case as a lessee, and is not a de facto lessee, and thus, the claim of this case is unreasonable.

However, the above circumstances are true.

arrow