logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.24 2019가합501190
손해배상(기)
Text

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s friendly omission in D, and the Defendants are found to fall into D’s private villages.

B. On October 2003, the lease contract was concluded between the lessor and the lessee (hereinafter “F”) as the Plaintiff Company F (hereinafter “F”) and the lessee (the husband at the time D was the husband at the time) with respect to the Gangnam-gu Seoul E-1st basement 272 (hereinafter “instant building”).

(hereinafter “instant existing lease agreement”). G was registered as a business operator under his name at that time and operated a danran bar in the instant building.

(hereinafter “instant dan”). C.

1) After that, on June 1, 2005, a lease contract was concluded on June 1, 2005 with a lessor F and a lessee as Defendant B, which is KRW 100 million from June 1, 2005 to May 30, 2006, the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million and monthly rent of KRW 6 million (payment on the fifth of the following month) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

(2) The instant lease agreement states that “The term lease agreement is entered into with G as of June 1, 2005 by succeeding the contract with the former lessee as of June 1, 2005, and therefore, the relationship between G and F, a lessor, shall also succeed to all the obligation obligations, including the deposit, rent, and management expenses.”

3) On August 1, 2005, the name of business registration was changed to Defendant B. D. (1) On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a contract for transfer of lease deposit amounting to KRW 100 million on the premise that Defendant B would pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount amounting to KRW 100 million on the instant lease agreement and received authentication by attaching the instant lease agreement.

(A) 2. In addition, Defendant B borrowed only the name of the contractor B of the instant building, and the actual principal is the Plaintiff and only the name was lent due to personal circumstances.

arrow