(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.07.16 2015가단9870

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) 광주지방법원 2015.07.16 2015가단9870

임차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff (designated parties) with respect to KRW 26 million and Defendant B with respect thereto.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 18, 2012, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed D (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) entered into a contract with Defendant C to jointly lease real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the deposit amount of KRW 26 million, monthly rent of KRW 40,000,000, and the period from September 30, 2012 to September 29, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Accordingly, on September 30, 2012, the Plaintiff et al. paid the above security deposit to Defendant C, and the instant lease agreement entered Defendant C as the lessor’s agent.

B. On September 29, 2014, the date of termination of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff, etc. delivered the instant real estate to Defendant C.

C. On the other hand, on September 29, 2014, Defendant C drafted and delivered a written oath to the Plaintiff, etc. to pay the money received as a security deposit by October 15, 2014 upon the termination of the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant pledge”).

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, entry in Gap's evidence 1 through 3 (including additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Upon the termination of the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), Defendant B is the lessor of the Plaintiff, etc., and Defendant C is jointly obligated to pay the deposit amount of KRW 26 million according to the agreement set out in the instant pledge.

B. The gist of the Defendants’ assertion is that Defendant B did not directly conclude the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, etc., and only granted Defendant C the authority to conclude the monthly rent agreement with respect to the monthly rent agreement, and did not grant the right to represent the conclusion of the lease agreement premised on the receipt of the deposit and the receipt of the deposit.

Ultimately, the instant lease contract is concluded by Defendant C, etc. with the Plaintiff and the Defendant B at will.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.11.28 2014가단20342

-수원지방법원 2013.04.19 2012나38442

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.16 2013가단325908

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.23 2014가단30573

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.06.09 2016가단3968