(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.11.17 2014가합10046

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.11.17 2014가합10046

임대차보증금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the lessee of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 102 Dong 606 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The Defendant is a licensed real estate agent who arranged the conclusion of the instant apartment lease agreement between the Plaintiff, B and C at the request of B, a co-owner of the instant apartment.

B. On June 21, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with B, one of the co-owners and other co-owners, and the other co-owners, to lease the instant apartment at KRW 650 million (the contract amounting to KRW 150 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder KRW 50 million on July 30, 2013).

On the other hand, B and C agreed to reduce the maximum debt amount of the registration of creation of a mortgage over the first-third priority set up on the apartment of this case to KRW 120 million and to cancel the registration of establishment of a mortgage and the registration of seizure on the fourth priority priority.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

The non-performance of the special agreement did not notify C of such fact at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement. On July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff and the actual resident) received the remainder of the lease deposit of the instant apartment from the Plaintiff (E), but failed to perform the special agreement on the instant lease agreement by using the instant apartment for other purposes instead of using it for repayment to the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant apartment.

B is subject to criminal punishment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) due to the fact that he/she acquired the remainder of lease deposit from the plaintiff even though he/she was unable to cancel the right to collateral security established on the apartment of this case, such as the special agreement

(Seoul High Court 2014No2125). d.

The plaintiff's cancellation of the contract is a service of a copy of the complaint of this case on the ground that it is a deception.

참조조문

-특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.04.19 2015나2070707

-대구고등법원 2015.11.19 2015나21333

-서울행정법원 2019.01.18 2018구합2544

-서울고등법원 2016.06.30 2016나2015899

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.02 2014가단5342936