beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
Summary
A. On November 10, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the deceased C on a deposit basis with the view to setting up a lease on a deposit basis of KRW 50,000,000 for the two stories above D ground (hereinafter “instant building”) on the two stories above D in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-do, and paid KRW 50,000,000 to the deceased C on the same day.
B. On February 27, 2007, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 200,000,000 on the instant building, in order to intentionally obstruct the Plaintiff from establishing chonsegwon’s right to lease on a deposit basis under the instant contract.
C. As above, the Defendant committed an illegal act that prevents the Plaintiff from establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis, thereby causing damages equivalent to KRW 50,000,000 for the deposit money, and the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and the delay damages.
Judgment
A. According to the evidence Nos. 5 (including additional numbers) and Nos. 1, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the deceased’s heir on Nov. 10, 2006 seeking to return KRW 50,000,000 of the lease deposit under the lease agreement entered into with the deceased’s heir as to the instant building between the deceased’s heir and the deceased’s heir. On May 25, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement on the instant building between the Plaintiff and the deceased’s heir as the lower court’s 2011No77 on May 25, 2011.
The judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000 for lease deposit, and the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal by the Chuncheon District Court, the appellate court of December 9, 201, rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal by the same court No. 2011 or 2382, respectively, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive.
B. In light of the above facts, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including Gap evidence No. 1, is alone the Plaintiff.