logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.04.26 2016가단220111
건물인도
Text

1. On April 30, 2017, the Defendant received KRW 34,000,000 from the Plaintiff at the same time, and simultaneously attached to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 11, 2009, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant building part”) on the lease deposit amount of KRW 34,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 800,000, and the period from May 30, 2009 to April 29, 201 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The instant lease agreement was renewed.

B. On May 25, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased a building where the instant real estate was located (hereinafter “instant building”) from C, and succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 18, 2016.

C. D requested the Defendant to prepare a low-end contract allowing C to receive the old age pension. On July 18, 2014, as to the instant building portion between C and the Defendant, D’s lease agreement between C and the Defendant as of July 18, 2014, the lease agreement as of May 30, 2014, which was concluded as of July 18, 2014 as the lease deposit amount of KRW 34,000,000, the rent of KRW 450,000, and the period of 60 months from May 30, 2014.

(1) After July 18, 2014, the Defendant paid C the amount of KRW 800,000 per month to C. Even after the Plaintiff purchased the instant building, the Plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 800,000 per month to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 1 through 5, witness testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff prepared a false contract on July 18, 2014 to receive old age pension by C, and the above lease contract is null and void as a false conspiracy. Since the lease contract in this case is terminated upon the expiration of the period of April 29, 2017, the Defendant asserts to the effect that once April 30, 2017 arrives, the part of the building in this case should be handed over to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant's lease contract on July 18, 2014 is valid, and according to this, the lease term is valid.

arrow