logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.08.20 2018가단21247
임차금반환
Text

Of the lawsuit in this case, the part of the creditor subrogation claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

(b) Costs of lawsuit;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with F, the owner, with respect to the second floor E (hereinafter “instant E”) among the buildings of the fifth floor D (hereinafter “instant building”) of the Busan Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant building”), with a deposit of KRW 70 million, the rent of KRW 50,000,000,000 (including management expenses), and from June 3, 2016 to June 2, 2017, and obtained a fixed date on June 7, 2016.

B. On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase of the instant building. The Plaintiff and the Intervenor implicitly renewed the instant lease agreement and extended the lease term until June 2, 2018, but the Plaintiff transferred the instant title E to the Intervenor due to personal reasons on March 7, 2018.

C. On June 28, 2018, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on May 10, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the Defendant agreed to refund KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff after acquiring the ownership of the instant building after acquiring the ownership of the instant building. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s testimony as stated in the evidence Nos. 3 through 6, and the witness B’s testimony alone. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit as there is no

B. The Plaintiff is liable for the assignee of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the Plaintiff’s position as lessor under the Housing Lease Protection Act, because the Defendant succeeded to the status of lessor of the instant lease agreement under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the Defendant is responsible for returning KRW 70 million of the deposit under the instant lease agreement. However, the Defendant, before completing the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant building, shall complete the registration on March 7, 2018

arrow