(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.04.26 2014가단10493

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) 대전지방법원 2016.04.26 2014가단10493

임대차보증금

Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 30,000,000 and its amount are 20% per annum from April 5, 2014 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants are co-owners of the fourth floor building in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On March 20, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with regard to E, in which Defendant B’s agent is employed and 401 of the instant building (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) with regard to the period from March 21, 2011 to February 28, 2013, and KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”), and drafted a lease agreement thereon (hereinafter “the instant contract”).

(4) On March 21, 201, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30,000,00 to the account of the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation of the Republic of Korea on March 21, 2011. On the same day, the Plaintiff was handed over the leased object of this case on the same day.

C. On January 13, 2013, the Plaintiff delivered the leased object of this case to Defendant B, but Defendant B entered into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff without his own permission and received KRW 30,000,000,000, and refused to return the deposit amount to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, on July 25, 2014, E, without authority from the Daejeon District Court, forged and used the instant contract under the name of Defendant B without authority, and was sentenced to three years by imprisonment with prison labor for the following reasons: (a) as if Defendant B was committed, the Plaintiff acquired deposit money of KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff.

E appealed from Daejeon District Court 2014No2274, and was sentenced not guilty on July 25, 2014 by the above court on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to support the guilty of the Plaintiff’s fraud.

(However, the above court found the plaintiff guilty of forging the private document, uttering of the falsified document, and fraud against other lessees). 【In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' arguments.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2017.10.19 2017나1008

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.10.22 2015가단6232

-의정부지방법원 2016.10.07 2016가단18326

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.25 2015가합553070

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.06 2016가단44590