logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2014.05.29 2013가합4530
임차보증금 반환 청구
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 300,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from June 27, 2013 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. On April 2008, the Defendant leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff and C of the first floor of 101 (hereinafter “instant store”) among the 6th floor buildings located D (hereinafter “instant building”) located in D at the time of Pakistan (hereinafter “instant building”).

However, on April 22, 2013, the above store was sold to a third party in the public sale procedure, and the Defendant's obligation to use and benefit from the leased object was impossible, and the lease contract was terminated.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to refund the above lease deposit amount of KRW 300 million and damages for delay to the plaintiff who acquired the right to return the lease deposit from the joint lessee C.

B. The lessor of the instant lease agreement is not the Defendant, but the non-party company (hereinafter “non-party company”) construction, and thus, cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

2. Determination

A. In a case where an actor who executes a contract has done a juristic act in the name of another person, as to whom the actor and the other party are the party to the contract, the parties to the contract shall first determine the offender or the title holder as the party to the contract in accordance with the consent of the actor, if the actor and the other party agree with each other. Where the intent of the actor and the other party are not in accord, the other party shall be determined by how the actor and the title holder should understand the party to the contract in accordance with the detailed circumstances before and after the conclusion

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da83199, 83205, Feb. 10, 2011). (B)

According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, with respect to the store of this case, around April 2008, the lessor is determined as KRW 100,000,000,000 for the following reasons: (a) the lessor is named as the Plaintiff and C (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”); (b) the lease deposit is KRW 300,000,000,000.

arrow