logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단5087660
추심금
Text

1. The defendant is simultaneously with the delivery of the two-story 253.44 square meters and three-story 253.44 square meters among the real estate listed in the attached list from C.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 16, 2013, C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the two-story and three-story of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) with the lease deposit KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 1,850,00, and the period from November 7, 2013 to November 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and thereafter, C paid the said lease deposit and moved into the instant building.

B. Although the Defendant concluded the instant lease contract against C as above, the Defendant asserted that C terminated the instant lease contract due to the delinquency of C as the monthly rent, and filed a lawsuit for the name of the building at Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2014Kadan8358, which was rendered without holding any pleadings as follows, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

1. The defendant

A. To deliver the instant building;

B. From December 7, 2013 to the completion date of delivery of each of the above buildings, money shall be paid at the rate of KRW 2,150,000 per month.

C. On December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) as a notary public, at the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2014TTTT19615, the amount of loan KRW 287,886,000 based on the authentic copy of an executory notarial deed No. 254, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order on the instant lease deposit that C has against the Defendant; and (b) the said collection order was served on the Defendant on December 8, 2014.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case has already been terminated by the defendant's termination, and the defendant is obligated to pay the lease deposit of this case to the plaintiff, who is the collection right holder of the right to claim the refund of the lease deposit of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to this, the Defendant shall not transfer the instant building from C before such transfer.

arrow