logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.08.20 2018가단331869
전부금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 2017, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the non-party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party Co., Ltd.”) on the part of the foregoing building (hereinafter “the leased object”) with the owner of D, the 19th above ground level building located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan.

The non-party company occupied and used the leased object of this case from its business commencement, and paid a deposit of KRW 200,000 in total to the defendant under the lease agreement of this case.

CDF

B. The Plaintiff was drafted a notarized deed of debt repayment contract (quasi-loan for consumption) with the content that the Plaintiff would receive gold KRW 145,500,000 from the Nonparty Company until June 30, 2018, as it had been ordered to receive part of the construction cost, even though it had been leased by the Nonparty Company.

C. However, as of July 6, 2018, the non-party company did not repay its obligation to the plaintiff to the non-party company. As of this day, the plaintiff was issued a claim attachment and assignment order (hereinafter "the assignment order of this case") with the claim claim amounting to KRW 110,000,000,000 with the non-party company's claim amounting to the non-party company's claim against the non-party company as of July 6, 2018. The above order was served on the defendant on July 17, 2018 and confirmed around that time.

Meanwhile, from January 2018 to April 2018, the non-party company delayed payment of the aggregate of KRW 67,640,918 for rent and management expenses under the instant lease agreement, the non-party company terminated the instant lease agreement until June 30, 2018, and prepared and issued a notarial deed to the Defendant to pay the overdue rent, etc. on or around May 9, 2018.

Although the non-party company issued a notarial deed as above, the non-party company failed to perform its duty under the notarial deed, the defendant is the court against the non-party company on the ground that the notarial deed was terminated.

arrow