(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.23 2018나62210

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.23 2018나62210

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. All the appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim filed by this court.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 11, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract on a deposit basis (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant on behalf of G, the owner of real estate listed in the separate sheet, with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet, with a deposit money of KRW 50 million, the duration of the lease on a deposit basis, October 10, 2019, respectively, and with a person having a right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “instant contract”). On October 12, 2017, the Defendant actually remitted the amount to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff on the deposit basis of KRW 49.6 million, but the Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that the Defendant was fully paid the deposit money from the Defendant.

A. The payment was made.

B. On December 18, 2017, the Plaintiff returned 5 million won, which is part of the deposit money, to the Defendant. On February 2, 2018, the Defendant again transferred 5 million won to the Plaintiff on February 2, 2018, the amount that the Defendant actually transferred to the Plaintiff is KRW 4,915,00, but the Plaintiff did not dispute the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 5 million from the Defendant.

(1) The return was made.

C. Meanwhile, on December 14, 2017, the Plaintiff donated real estate listed in the separate sheet from G, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 5, 2018 due to donation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case is terminated due to the termination of agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has a duty to deliver the real estate stated in the separate sheet to the plaintiff at the same time with payment of the deposit money of KRW 50 million from the plaintiff

In this regard, the defendant did not respond to the plaintiff's claim on the premise of termination of the agreement since there was a discussion to terminate the agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.02.12 2013가단11293

-울산지방법원 2019.02.19 2018가단50965

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.05.23 2018가단108702

-창원지방법원진주지원 2016.07.12 2015가단11515

-서울서부지방법원 2018.11.27 2018가단219133