(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.06.22 2016나8438 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2017.06.22 2016나8438

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 15, 2004, the Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with Dongin-si, Jeonsan-si, Jeonju-si, Seoul, with the content that C would complete the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name. On May 15, 2004, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant apartment due to sale under the Defendant’s name. The purchase price was paid by E in de facto marital relationship with C.

B. On April 7, 2004, E leased the instant apartment from April 7, 200 to April 7, 2006, under the name of the Defendant, the registered titleholder of the instant apartment, with the term of KRW 25,000,000, and the term of lease from April 7, 2004 to April 7, 2006, but on April 19, 2008, E leased the instant apartment to the Plaintiff with the term of lease KRW 28,00,000, and the term of lease from April 19, 208 to April 19, 2010. Around August 24, 2010, E extended the term of lease of the said apartment to August 24, 201, by increasing the lease deposit to KRW 5,00,000,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) the Plaintiff is a party.

On February 21, 2007, the plaintiff continued to reside in the apartment of this case after filing a move-in report with the apartment of this case.

On the other hand, around 2012, the Defendant was aware that he is the owner of the instant apartment and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to deliver the instant apartment (Seoul District Court 2012Da37437). The said lawsuit was proceeded by service by public notice, and was rendered a favorable judgment on August 23, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

After that, on November 14, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment from the Defendant for KRW 37,000,000, and on the same day, completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the instant apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the court of the first instance.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원마산지원 2017.10.18 2017가단102801

-창원지방법원 2018.10.25 2017가합55261

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.17 2019나65018

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.30 2017가합24262

-수원지방법원 2017.03.09 2016가단32120