beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 11, 2011, C agreed to provide the Defendant with Nos. 401 and 501 of the same building, including No. 402 of the 1st and 4, Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Building No. 1, the 401 of the 1st and 501 of the 1st and the 402 of the 1st and the 4, the 1st and 501 of the 20
B. On October 12, 201, the Defendant completed the provisional registration of the right to claim a transfer of ownership with respect to the instant house, and on October 28, 201, agreed to lease the instant house to the Plaintiff on October 28, 201, with the lease deposit of KRW 22 million and the lease period of KRW 6,01 through November 6, 2013.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.
Under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid all the lease deposit amounting to KRW 22 million to the Defendant, such as paying the down payment of KRW 9 million on October 28, 201, and the remainder of KRW 13 million on November 1, 2011, and subsequently occupied the instant housing.
However, on May 27, 201, C took out a loan of KRW 110,00,000 from the non-party Gwangju National Credit Union (hereinafter “Non-Party Cooperative”) with respect to the instant housing on May 27, 201, and established a right to collateral security of KRW 143,00,000,000 for the maximum debt amount. However, C was unable to repay the said loan, the non-party Cooperative filed an application for voluntary auction with D with the Incheon District Court around March 2012. In the voluntary auction procedure commenced on March 9, 2012, E awarded the instant housing on July 30, 201 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 3, 2012.
E. After that, E requested the Plaintiff to transfer the instant house, the Plaintiff did not receive the lease deposit from the Defendant and delivered the instant house to E on December 14, 2012.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, the purport of whole pleading
2. According to the above facts of recognition, as the instant housing was sold by auction, the Defendant was unable to perform its duty to provide an object under the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff was the Defendant.