(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.16 2017가단27673

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.16 2017가단27673

건물명도 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On March 28, 201, the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) requested the Defendant to rent KRW 56.35m2, Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dagra 4 (hereinafter “instant real property”); (b) leased KRW 56.35m2,00 from D the deposit amount; (c) the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement for use to immediately explain the Plaintiff upon request; and (d) made the Defendant reside free of charge in the instant real property; (c) the said loan agreement was terminated by delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint; and (d) the Defendant is obligated to surrender the said real property to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant asserted that D had a loan claim of KRW 60 million against D, but the Plaintiff lent KRW 55 million to D, and D partially repaid the above claim amounting to KRW 25 million among them.

After that, in order to secure the return of the Plaintiff’s loans of KRW 5 million against D and the Defendant’s loans of KRW 35 million (=60 million - KRW 25 million - KRW 5 million), the Plaintiff prepared a lease contract with D as to the instant real estate amounting to KRW 90 million between Plaintiff 55 million and the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant at the time, and thus, only the Plaintiff was the lessor’s name at the time. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

2. As to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff, lessor D, lease deposit amounting to KRW 90 million, lease contract was made from March 28, 2011 to March 28, 2013 with respect to the instant real estate, and the fact that the Defendant currently resides in the instant real estate is no dispute between the parties.

However, as to whether a loan contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the above real estate as alleged by the plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize the above documents alone, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 5, D is the defendant of June 30, 2010 and the same year.

9. 7.12 million won, January 1, 201

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.07.15 2014가단27595

-부산지방법원 2015.02.13 2014구합3113

-수원지방법원 2016.10.05 2016가단9595

-서울북부지방법원 2017.12.01 2017나31683

-서울동부지방법원 2015.07.03 2014고단3959