logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.09.01 2016나51082
임차보증금 반환
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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Defendant’s husband C is the building indicated in the indication of the attached building on April 30, 1993 (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) On May 7, 2005, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the cancellation of title trust, and died on April 10, 2005, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the agreement division as to the instant building. (2) C operated the wedding hall in the instant building from December 1, 1989 to November 2004. E operated the wedding hall from November 2004 to November 2008. D leased the instant building in the name of I and operated the wedding hall from around 2009 to around 2012, and F leased the instant building in the name of J from May 2012 to November 2013.

3) Since December 1989, the Plaintiff started to conduct the photographing business with C’s permission, and continued to conduct the photographing business in the wedding place from C to E, D, and F until May 2013, while the wedding hall operator changed in sequence from C to E, D, and F, the Plaintiff continued to conduct the photographing business in the instant building. 4) upon request from C to C, E received a request from the Plaintiff to ensure that he/she continues to conduct the business as he/she had operated on the instant building. Upon receiving a request from the Plaintiff for the photographing of a wedding hall, E received a certain ratio of the amount of the photographing from the Plaintiff as a consideration for taking the wedding, but did not receive a new business guarantee money, and did not conclude a separate agreement on the photographing business.

D, which was an employee of E, was directly operating the wedding hall, did not receive a new deposit or conclude a contract separately.

5. On May 9, 2005, the Defendant received a request from the Plaintiff to prepare a receipt for the business bonds paid to C from the Plaintiff as the business bonds amounting to KRW 35 million, and upon receipt of a request from the Plaintiff, the Defendant “certificate of deposit” and “three million won in daily payment.”

arrow