(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.12.22 2015가단53838

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.12.22 2015가단53838

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays KRW 120,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the claims filed in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant’s wife at the time when the C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office represented the Defendant on August 26, 2013, with the lease deposit of KRW 120,000,000, the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000 from October 4, 2013 to October 4, 2015, and the down payment of KRW 110,000,000,000, which is paid at the time of the contract and paid as of October 4, 2013 (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”). The Plaintiff remitted the remainder of KRW 10,00,000,000 to the Defendant’s account as the lease deposit of KRW 1,00,00,000,000,000,00 for the same account of the Defendant.

4. The fact that D delivers KRW 60,000,000 to D with cash and check, paid KRW 120,000,000 for the above lease deposit, and that D returned KRW 110,000,000 to E who leased the instant building prior to the Plaintiff on October 4, 2013 to E who resided in the instant building, prior to the Plaintiff on October 4, 2013.

The Defendant alleged that D had no authority to enter into the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant at the time when the instant lease agreement was concluded on August 26, 2013, but the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable on the ground that there was no counter-proof, as there was no other counter-proof.

According to the above facts, since the instant lease contract was terminated on October 4, 2015, the Defendant, as a lessor, is obligated to return KRW 120,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the lessee.

2. As to the counterclaim, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff occupied the instant building without a legitimate possessory right despite the fact that the Plaintiff had not concluded a lease contract with respect to the instant building, and sought delivery of the instant building against the Plaintiff.

However, according to the provisions of Paragraph 1, the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.09 2014가단213484

-서울남부지방법원 2016.08.09 2015가단218550

-울산지방법원 2019.06.28 2018가단24959

-서울동부지방법원 2014.07.25 2013가단53480

-수원지방법원안산지원 2014.11.13 2013가합5012