beta
Text
1. The defendant's case to return the lease deposit against the plaintiff of Incheon District Court 2013Gauri15939.
Reasons
1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry described in Gap evidence 1 and 2-1 and 2-1.
With respect to the registration of ownership transfer in the name of E due to the entrustment of provisional attachment on November 12, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 15, 201 under the name of the Plaintiff on March 17, 2011, with respect to the multi-household 7 and 202, which are multi-household 3 stories of multi-household 3 stories in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Incheon.
B. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the return of lease deposit (20,000,000, against the Plaintiff, asserting that “the Defendant leased the Dara 7, 202, Dara 7, 1991, from the Master Land Development Co., Ltd., Ltd. to KRW 20,000,000, and the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the said building and succeeded to the lessor status, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the lease deposit to the Defendant.” On January 2, 2014, the said court issued a performance recommendation decision to the effect that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 20,00,000 to the Defendant” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant performance recommendation decision”). The instant performance recommendation decision became final and conclusive on January 23, 2014 as the limit of the period for filing an objection.
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the argument is that the plaintiff who succeeded to the status of a lessor by acquiring the ownership of 7.202 Dong 7,000,000 won of the lease deposit is obligated to return the lease deposit to the defendant. Thus, the decision on the execution recommendation of this case is justifiable. The plaintiff is not having succeeded to the status of a lessor as alleged by the defendant, and the plaintiff is not entitled to authorize compulsory execution based on the decision on the execution recommendation
B. In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10-1, 2, 4, 5-1 through 4, 6, and 9-1, 5-2, 7-2, 190, 190.