(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.05.03 2015가단34086

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.05.03 2015가단34086

양수금 등

Text

1. Defendant A shall deliver to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. Defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 27, 200, Defendant A leased real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as indicated in the separate sheet from the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) with a deposit of KRW 15,029,00, monthly rent of KRW 104,320, and the lease period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010. On a two-year basis, the lease contract was renewed and the lease deposit is at KRW 17,165,00, monthly rent of KRW 119,140, and the lease period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016.

(b) The above lease contract entered into between Defendant A and Defendant Corporation (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

On April 26, 2007, Defendant A borrowed KRW 5,000,000 from the Plaintiff (the Hansan Saemaul Bank prior to the change) and transferred the right to return the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement on April 20, 207, and notified the Defendant Corporation of the transfer thereof around that time.

C. According to the instant lease agreement, the Defendant Corporation may terminate the instant lease agreement in a case where Defendant A has been in arrears for at least three consecutive months.

The defendant A has failed to pay the rent for at least three months, and the sum of the rent and management fee in arrears is 638,440 won in arrears.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-5-2, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The obligee who terminated the instant lease agreement is entitled to exercise the obligor’s right on behalf of the obligor in order to preserve the obligor’s claim. If the obligee’s right to preserve and the obligor’s right to exercise on behalf of the obligor is closely related and the obligee’s right to exercise on behalf of the obligor is at the risk of not being able to obtain the complete satisfaction of the obligor’s claim unless the obligee exercises on behalf of the obligor’s right of subrogation, and it is necessary to ensure the effectiveness and appropriateness

유사 판례

-대전지방법원천안지원 2017.11.23 2017가단104039

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.14 2014가단197001

-인천지방법원 2015.02.12 2014가단39045

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2017.02.01 2015가단22618

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.11 2016가단25940