(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.04.28 2015가단56358

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) 부산지방법원 2016.04.28 2015가단56358

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 5,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 28, 2012, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) KRW 55 million from Jung-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant building”) as the lease deposit and the lease term as of April 27, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Plaintiff paid KRW 5.5 million to B on April 27, 2012, among the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, KRW 5.5 million.

B. The instant building was sold to B, D, E, F, and Defendant successively, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant building on April 20, 2015.

C. On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract on the grounds of the expiration of the lease term and demanded the Defendant to return the lease deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the expiration of the term, and the Defendant, who succeeded to the status of the lessor of the instant lease by acquiring the ownership of the instant building, is obligated to pay the lessee deposit KRW 5 million.

Although the Defendant asserts that it was deceiving and purchased the instant building, and thus, did not succeed to the lessor status of the instant lease agreement, it is insufficient to view that the Defendant revoked the instant building sales contract on the ground of deception (the Defendant’s completion of the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant building), and even if the instant building sales contract was revoked on the ground of deception, the instant building sales contract was revoked on the ground of deception.

Even if it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff who is a bona fide third party, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.09.30 2016나5051

-대구지방법원 2020.06.24 2019나321311

-대전지방법원서산지원 2019.05.01 2018가단4323

-대전지방법원서산지원 2019.05.01 2018가단4347

-대전지방법원서산지원 2019.05.01 2018가단4309