(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2014.05.14 2014가단723

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) 대전지방법원천안지원 2014.05.14 2014가단723

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with C, the former owner of the instant real estate, with the terms of a deposit of KRW 72 million with respect to the instant real estate, and the term from September 24, 2012 to September 23, 2014, and completed the move-in report.

B. On September 12, 2012, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of C on September 12, 2012, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Ssung Co., Ltd. on January 7, 2013, and finally, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Defendant on February 26, 2013.

C. On December 31, 2013, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff, around December 30, 2013, a certificate of content that the Plaintiff’s husband D terminated the lease agreement on the ground that the Plaintiff destroyed and intruded the locking device of the instant real estate around 12:00, and the content certification reached the Defendant on January 2, 2014.

The defendant possessed the real estate of this case until the date of closing the argument of this case.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7 and 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, as long as the defendant acquired ownership of the real estate of this case, he/she succeeds to the status of the lessor C and corporation as the former owner of the real estate of this case under Housing Lease Protection Act

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obliged to pay 72 million won to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

(3) The defendant is not obligated to pay damages for delay to the plaintiff as long as the plaintiff did not deliver the real estate of this case to the defendant until the closing date of the argument of this case and it does not appear that it is necessary to claim in advance damages for delay of deposit.

A. The Defendant’s defense that the lease contract entered into with C is the main purpose.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.03.18 2014나7283

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.08 2015가단5084480

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2015.11.11 2013가단401

-대전지방법원천안지원 2014.05.14 2014가단716

-광주지방법원목포지원 2015.04.30 2013가합213