beta
Text
1. Defendant C shall deliver to Defendant D the real estate indicated in the attached list.
2. Defendant D’s above Paragraph 1. from Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 19, 2017, Defendant C entered into a lease agreement with Defendant D to lease the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) by setting the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, KRW 800,000,000 per month (payment on May 19), and the lease term of May 18, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant lease”). At that time, Defendant C paid the instant lease deposit to Defendant D, and received the instant real estate.
B. On August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff and the non-party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party E”) leased KRW 6 million to Defendant C by setting the lending period on April 31, 2018, and the agreement at a rate of 27.9% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan”); on the same day, Defendant C transferred the claim for refund of KRW 6 million out of the instant lease deposit to the Plaintiff and the non-party Co., Ltd. on the same day (hereinafter “transfer of the instant claim”); and the non-party Co., Ltd delegated the Plaintiff with all rights concerning the management of the original refund claim.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 9, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the claim against Defendant C, the instant lease agreement was terminated on May 18, 2018, and thus, the Plaintiff was a transferee of KRW 6 million out of the claim to refund the lease deposit of this case, and the lessee, in subrogation of Defendant C, who is the lessor, may seek to transfer the instant real estate in order to preserve the claim. Defendant C has the duty to deliver the instant real estate to Defendant D.
Defendant C asserts that the assignment of claim in this case is null and void, but there is no assertion or proof as to the facts of the invalidity, and the above assertion cannot be accepted.
B. According to the facts of recognition 1 as to the claim against Defendant D, Defendant D is only 6 million out of the lease deposit of this case, unless there are special circumstances.