(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.03.22 2016가단9964

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) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.03.22 2016가단9964

전세보증금 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On September 19, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion C concluded a lease contract with the Defendant for KRW 35 million with respect to the building of this case (hereinafter “the building of this case”) and KRW 35 million with the Defendant’s agent C and paid KRW 35 million with respect to the lease contract of this case.

After that, C was paid 35,00 won to the head of the Tong through C, but C became aware of the contact after March 18, 2016, and as a result, C became aware that another tenant was living in the building of this case, and C escaped and locked.

The defendant shall return to the plaintiff the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff, who is in charge of the contract, sought the return of the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis under the lease contract with the Defendant. Therefore, we examine whether the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant building was effective.

The terms of the lease contract shall be in accordance with the use of the real estate after paying the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis and occupying the real estate of another person.

However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff intended to pay KRW 35 million to the Defendant as the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, and in return, intended to gain profits of KRW 355,00 per month, and did not intend to occupy the instant building and use and benefit therefrom in accordance with the purpose of the said real estate. The Defendant’s agent C also appears to have no intention to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and to have not made use and benefit therefrom. As such, the lease agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the instant building constitutes a false declaration of

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion seeking the return of the deposit on the premise that the lease contract was effective between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the building of this case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.03.22 2016가단8664

-창원지방법원진주지원 2020.12.16 2020가단3488

-수원지방법원 2017.03.23 2016가단515205

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.09 2019가합565583

-인천지방법원 2019.10.22 2018나7344