(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가단130835

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) 대구지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가단130835

임대차보증금

Text

1. Defendant C shall pay 50,000,000 won to the Plaintiff and 12% per annum from November 2, 2019 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 18, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) between Defendant C, who referred to as Defendant B’s agent, with respect to the first floor housing of the Daegu Dong-gu D (hereinafter “instant housing”) where ownership transfer was registered in the name of Defendant B at the time. As to the housing of the first floor above the Daegu Dong-gu D (hereinafter “instant housing”), the lessor as Defendant B, the lessee as the Plaintiff, and the lease deposit as KRW 50,00,000, and the lease term as from April 17, 2018 to April 18, 2020.

B. Under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff paid 50,000,000 won as the lease deposit to Defendant C at that time, and received the instant housing.

C. However, as the Daegu District Court E rendered a compulsory auction decision regarding the instant housing, the Plaintiff had no choice but to deliver the instant housing to a third party as the instant housing was sold to a third party. On August 30, 2019, the Plaintiff left the instant housing on the part of the buyer.

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

2. The gist of the party’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff did not receive any dividend as to the lease deposit due to the sale of the instant housing by compulsory auction, and that the Plaintiff primarily sought the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant B, a lessor of the instant lease contract, and also sought the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant C who entered into the instant lease contract in the capacity of Defendant B’s agent, even though there is no power of representation, in the event

As to this, Defendant B only lent the title of ownership to Defendant C, who is the actual owner of the instant house, and did not grant the right of representation to conclude a lease contract under his own name. Defendant C asserted that the eviction relationship is an issue to be examined and dealt with by the Plaintiff.

3. Defendant.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2016.07.06 2016가단6403

-수원지방법원여주지원 2016.04.27 2015가단11931

-울산지방법원 2020.12.02 2019가단117322

-청주지방법원 2017.09.21 2017나10306

-부산지방법원 2017.02.16 2016가단316675