logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.04 2018나73791
양수금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 1, 2014, C leased the fourth floor E of the D Building in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant to KRW 40 million as lease deposit, and KRW 300,000 as monthly rent, and operated the clothing sales business.

B. On August 19, 2014, C transferred to the Plaintiff the right to claim the return of the lease deposit for the instant real estate (hereinafter “right to claim the return of the instant deposit”) and notified the Defendant of the transfer on October 6, 2014, but the notification did not reach the Defendant.

On June 24, 2016, C again notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail, and the notification reached the Defendant on June 27, 2016.

C. C discontinued its business around November 2016, and thereafter delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, since the lease contract for the instant real estate between C and the Defendant was terminated, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who acquired the instant claim for the refund of deposit, 28 million won among the lease deposit, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 25, 2018 (the day following the delivery of the complaint in this case) to the day of complete payment.

B. The defendant's assertion 1 is that the claim for the refund of the deposit of this case under the lease agreement with C is a claim that cannot be transferred to a third party, and the plaintiff acquired the above claim under the condition that he was aware of or was unaware of the special agreement prohibiting transfer or was gross negligence, and therefore, he cannot pay the status of the transferee of the claim to the defendant.

In the event that a third party takes over a claim from a creditor, the transferee who is aware of the existence of a special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claim, or the existence of such special agreement, is known.

arrow