logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.08.21 2013가단23016
보증금반환 등
Text

1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of non-existence of the lease contract among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff against the defendant B.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff seeks confirmation as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit seeking confirmation that the Defendants did not have a lease agreement on the real estate stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) between the Defendants. As long as Defendant C sought a return of the lease deposit against Defendant B by asserting that it is not a lessee with respect to the loan of this case, the Plaintiff’s seek confirmation that there is no lease agreement on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet between the Defendants cannot be deemed as a direct means to resolve the dispute effectively, and thus, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation is unlawful.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was obligated to pay KRW 35 million to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff leased the instant loan from F, and Defendant B succeeded to the status of lessor by purchasing the instant loan from F. However, insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for setting up against the Plaintiff under the Housing Lease Protection Act, even if Defendant B purchased the instant loan from F, it cannot be deemed that he succeeds to the status of the lessor.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B’s purchase of the instant loan and deduction of KRW 35 million from the purchase price, and thus, it should be deemed that the obligation to return the lease deposit should be exempted from liability. However, in the event that the purchaser of real estate takes over the obligation to return the lease deposit with respect to the subject matter of sale and, in the event that it was agreed to deduct the amount of such obligation from the purchase price, it shall be deemed as the acquisition of performance, not the assumption of the obligation to exempt the seller from liability, barring any special circumstance, and the buyer bears the obligation to pay the obligation in reality.

arrow