(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.10.25 2016가단15250

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.10.25 2016가단15250

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion has a claim against C based on the settlement of the partnership relationship, and C has a claim for the refund of the lease deposit to the defendant.

On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a decision to seize and collect the above lease deposit claims against the Defendant as KRW 29,921,473 (hereinafter “instant order of seizure and collection”) with respect to the above lease deposit claims to be returned to the Defendant by Sungwon District Court, Sung-nam Branch 2014. As such, the Plaintiff was served on the Defendant on August 27, 2014, and the Defendant was obligated to pay the said KRW 69,921,473 and the delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.

2. The fact that the plaintiff received a collection order of the instant seizure and collection and served on the defendant is not a dispute between the parties.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant bears the obligation to return the deposit to C.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 written evidence, C concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on January 15, 2010 on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 15 million, rent, and management expenses (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D building 201 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and concluded a lease agreement on January 30, 201 and did not pay rent after March 201.

Accordingly, inasmuch as there is no money remaining after deducting the rent in arrears from the lease deposit of KRW 15 million around August 2012 (i.e., KRW 1,566 million, KRW 870,000 x 18 months), the Defendant did not have the lease deposit to be returned to C at the time of the seizure and collection order in this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit because there is no seizure and collection claim of the seizure and collection order of this case.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.04.07 2016나47

-의정부지방법원 2018.05.24 2017가합50249

-서울남부지방법원 2020.09.09 2020가단7419

-대전지방법원 2019.02.12 2018가단13711

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.09.01 2016가단30418