(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.04.03 2014나15614

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.04.03 2014나15614

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed with executory power under No. 62, 2011, which was issued by a notary public against B, filed an application for a seizure and collection order with the Plaintiff, based on the lease deposit claim as to the real estate recorded in the separate sheet against B (hereinafter “the instant building”) against the Defendant on February 15, 2013, with the Government District Court 2013TT2830, the third obligor as the Defendant.

B. On February 19, 2013, the court of execution issued a collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) with the content that fully accepts the above request, which was served on the Defendant on March 15, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that at the time of delivering the seizure and collection order of this case, the defendant had leased the building of this case to B at KRW 55,00,000,00, and accordingly, he had the claim to return the lease deposit against the defendant. Under the premise that B had the claim to return the lease deposit against the defendant, the defendant asserts that not only the delivery of the building of this case from B, but also the defendant has the obligation to pay the above lease deposit amount to the plaintiff as the collection right holder of the lease deposit and the delayed payment damages.

B. In a lawsuit for the amount of collection, the existence of the claim under collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.

Therefore, this case is based on the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant leased the building of this case to B at the time of delivering the seizure and collection order of this case. Accordingly, it is based on the health unit, Gap evidence No. 3, and the fact-finding about the He resident center of the court of first instance.

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 1. 11. 선고 2005다47175 판결

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.03.24 2015나27356

-서울동부지방법원 2016.10.25 2016가단15250

-창원지방법원 2021.01.29 2019나5295

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.12.12 2018가합908