logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.01.15 2015나16554
임대차보증금
Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, in addition to the contents to be explained by the court of first instance by this court, concerning the additional arguments made at the appellate court.

(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Judgment on the defendant's additional assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion B borrowed KRW 300 million from E, as well as borrowed KRW 300 million from E, separately borrowed KRW 300 million from F. To secure this, the Defendant’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff was transferred twice to F.

The plaintiff agreed with the above double transfer to F without any particular objection. Accordingly, the plaintiff was a debtor who had a burden to perform the obligation when E or F demands the performance of the obligation.

Since F requested the return of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff on August 3, 2005, the Defendant extinguished the obligation to return the lease deposit that the Plaintiff owes to F by paying KRW 200 million among them to F, and thus, even if the Plaintiff paid KRW 120 million to E according to the conciliation in the loan lawsuit brought by E (hereinafter “instant conciliation”), the Plaintiff does not have the right to claim additional payment of KRW 120 million to the Defendant.

The Defendant did not bear obligations to E following the instant conciliation, and the instant subsidies that the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff is the amount loaned to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 8-12 and the whole pleadings, B borrowed KRW 300 million from F on June 1, 2004, and transferred KRW 290 million to F on the instant building, and the Plaintiff consented thereto, and F notified the Plaintiff on April 26, 2005 that the repayment date of the said loan became due and changed. The Defendant transferred KRW 200 million to F on August 3, 2005 and partly repaid the said loan.

arrow