(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.04.26 2017나41945

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.04.26 2017나41945

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, shall be modified as follows.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around August 2015, the representative D of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant brokerage corporation”) introduced the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu F Building G (hereinafter “instant officetel”) that the Plaintiff, a Chinese student of UBS who wishes to rent an officetel, is managed by E (hereinafter “the instant lessor”).

B. On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement, including the following special terms, with respect to the lessor of the instant case and the instant officetel as KRW 20,00,000, monthly rent 280,000, and the lease term from August 11, 2015 to August 11, 2016, with respect to the instant officetel.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff deposited KRW 20,000,000 in the account of the instant intermediary corporation on the same day.

Special agreement - Deposit shall be deposited into the account of the instant intermediary corporation, and the instant lease agreement shall be concluded under the responsibility of the instant intermediary corporation.

- Monthly taxes shall be deposited into the account of the lessor of this case.

C. However, on March 24, 2014, H, the owner of the instant officetel, entered into a lease agreement with the instant officetel by setting the deposit of KRW 3,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 370,000, and the lease term of KRW 70,000 from March 7, 2014 to March 6, 2015, and there is no lack of delegation of the management right or lease right with respect to the instant officetel to the instant lessor.

On the other hand, it was not confirmed whether D delegated the sub-lease or management of the instant officetel to H at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement.

H brought an issue with the knowledge that the Plaintiff was residing in the instant officetel without knowledge of himself, and eventually, on February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff and H entered into a new lease agreement with the Plaintiff to succeed to the former lessee I’s lease agreement.

The plaintiff of Egye is the unpaid rent as of the date of transfer from I out of the 3,000,000 won of lease deposit.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.01.18 2018나37691

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.08.16 2018고단987

-대전지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단210747

-창원지방법원 2016.08.31 2015나37133

-서울남부지방법원 2017.08.18 2016가합112649