logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.05.13 2015가단9290
건물명도 등
Text

1. Defendant A shall deliver to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation the real estate listed in the attached Form.

2. Defendant.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged pursuant to Article 208(3)2 and the main sentence of Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, or as a whole, by taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9.

On October 23, 2012, Defendant A leased real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as indicated in the separate sheet from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation by the Defendant’s Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant real estate”) up to 13,519,00 won, monthly rent of KRW 178,160, and period of November 30, 2014. At that time, Defendant A paid all the above lease deposit to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.

B. On October 24, 2012, Defendant A transferred to the Plaintiff all of the claims for refund of lease deposit that Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation had under the instant lease agreement, and notified the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation of the said transfer by content-certified mail, and the said notification reached the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation at that time.

2. According to the facts found above, the instant lease agreement terminated on November 30, 2014, and even if the Defendants were to have been renewed, the said lease agreement was renewed.

Even if a lessor received the notification of the transfer of the lease deposit claim, even if the lessor and the lessee have made an explicit or implied agreement with regard to the renewal of the lease contract or extension of the contract term, such agreement cannot be effective against the transferee of the deposit. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253, Apr. 25, 1989). Thus, Defendant Korea Housing Corporation cannot set up against the Plaintiff on the ground of its renewal.

Therefore, Defendant A, the lessee of the lease of this case, is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the Defendant Korea Land & Housing Corporation, the lessor, and the Defendant Korea Land & Housing Corporation is against Defendant A.

arrow