logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2016가단5087738
보증금반환
Text

1. The defendant shall deliver C the real estate indicated in the annexed real estate indication to C.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 15, 2012, between C and C, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with each of the terms on the lease of KRW 140,000,000, and the period from November 21, 2012 to November 21, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The defendant occupies the house of this case as of the date of closing the argument of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4, Eul 1-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on a request for extradition based on creditor's subrogation right

A. According to the above facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period, the plaintiff can claim C to return the lease deposit, and the defendant is obligated to deliver the house of this case to C as the possessor of the house of this case as the owner of the house of this case.

In addition, in order to preserve the right to claim the return of the above lease deposit against C, the Plaintiff may request the Defendant to deliver the house of this case by subrogation.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to deliver the house of this case to C upon the plaintiff's subrogation claim.

B. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant is invalid as an act deemed to be the most effective act. The Defendant asserted that the instant lease agreement entered into with C is a genuine lessee who entered into a lease agreement with C with respect to the instant housing and has the right to occupy the instant housing. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant lease agreement is deemed null and void as an act of most effective act, or that the Defendant is a genuine lessee

Rather, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on the instant housing around 201, and resided in the instant housing, from D, one of his fraud.

arrow