(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.01.12 2019나121245

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) 대전지방법원 2021.01.12 2019나121245

손해배상금

Text

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and such revocation shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an authorized brokerage agent operating the building in Seo-gu, Northern-gu, and the “E-authorized brokerage office” located in Seo-gu, Seocheon-si, and F works as a brokerage assistant at the said authorized brokerage office around 2016.

B. On February 2016, H, the owner of the Seo-gu Seoul Office Officetel G G (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu (hereinafter “the instant officetel”), delegated F with all of the duties, including the management of the instant officetel, the conclusion of monthly rent rental contracts, and the receipt of monthly rent.

(c)

F, on September 7, 2016, the Plaintiff, as a H’s representative, drafted a lease agreement stating that the instant officetel is leased as KRW 13 million, monthly rent, and lease period (24 months) from September 12, 2016 to September 12, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement,” and the said lease agreement entered into on the said date was signed and sealed by the Defendant in the letter of certified brokerage agent for the opening of the instant lease agreement.

(d)

On the other hand, on September 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 500,000 to F as the provisional contract deposit to rent the instant officetel. The Plaintiff paid KRW 500,000,000 to F as the remainder of the lease deposit of the instant officetel, KRW 5,500,000,000 to September 7, 2016, KRW 200,000,000 to September 2, 2016, and KRW 19,000,000 as the lease deposit of the instant officetel in the name of F, but F did not pay the said amount to H.

E. After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff, while residing in the instant officetel, transferred the instant officetel on September 17, 2018, on which the said lease term expires, but failed to receive the refund of the leased deposit from F or H.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The party’s assertion 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion F is H to the instant officetel.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2021.01.12 2019나121245

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.14 2017고단6715

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.07 2016노1492

-서울서부지방법원 2015.09.11 2013가단16995

-부산지방법원 2021.01.28 2020가단304556