(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.02.17 2013나7897

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) 서울북부지방법원 2015.02.17 2013나7897

구상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant leased and used part of the five stories of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ga, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) from the Hague Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”), and did not pay two months out of the rent (hereinafter “the instant rent”) (the portion and May 6, 2009; hereinafter “the instant rent”). The Plaintiff shall be deemed to have paid the rent by subrogation from the Nonparty Co., Ltd., and completed the transfer notification after receiving the claim for the said rent from the Nonparty Co., Ltd., and the Defendant shall pay the said amount to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) concluded the lease of the instant real estate from the Nonparty Company to May 9, 201; (b) concluded the lease of the instant real estate from May 8, 2008 to May 9, 2010; (c) operated a screen golf course from June 2008; and (d) did not contact with the Nonparty Company, a lessor, on April 2009.

However, around May 2009, D shows that the instant real estate was sold in lots and the registration of ownership transfer was completed, thereby lowering D and monthly rent of KRW 5,500,000,000, and concluded a new lease contract between May 10, 2009 and May 9, 201, and paid the instant rent to D, there is no reason to respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim is based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant of the non-party company is subject to assignment, that is, the claim against the Defendant of the non-party company, and thus, the claim

The fact that the Defendant leased the instant real estate from the non-party company and did not pay the instant rent to the non-party company is not a dispute between the parties.

However, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and the whole pleadings, the Defendant paid to D the amount of KRW 5,500,000 per month for May and 6, 2009.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.01.15 2015가단222954

-서울서부지방법원 2016.12.20 2016가단212299

-전주지방법원 2018.01.26 2017가단13481

-창원지방법원 2017.05.18 2016가합1496

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.06.30 2014가단15285