(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.14 2018가단12670

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) 수원지방법원 2019.05.14 2018가단12670

전세금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Where the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including a branch number if a branch number exists) as to the cause of the claim, the purport of the entire argument is as follows: ① on November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff’s entire Chinese house on the first floor of DD, Jeju-si, with a deposit of KRW 80 million, annual rent of KRW 20 million, annual rent of KRW 20 million, and the period from November 1, 2016 to October 31, 2021 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); ② on November 4, 2016, the Plaintiff remitted the deposit amount of KRW 80 million to the Defendant on November 4, 2016; ③ on November 1, 2017, the Plaintiff’s repayment of the leased object to the Defendant during the period from November 1, 2017 to October 31, 2008.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the deposit amount of KRW 80 million and delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's assertion that the contract of this case was null and void due to a false conspiracy with the substance of the contract of this case, but the contract of this case only prepared a lease contract for the acquisition of the plaintiff's representative director's non-party's child under the contract of this case. However, in light of the fact that the defendant himself acknowledges that the plaintiff operated the restaurant in accordance with the contract of this case, and the defendant paid a certain amount of money to the plaintiff under the name of the security deposit and rent, apart from how to actually use the money paid to the plaintiff as the security deposit, it is difficult to view the contract of this case as null and void due to the circumstances asserted by the defendant,

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the defense of repayment is an additional KRW 40 million, which was paid by the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2019.07.04 2018가단57885

-서울동부지방법원 2017.10.26 2016가단116481

-수원지방법원여주지원 2019.11.12 2019가단2065

-서울동부지방법원 2021.01.14 2018가단134988