logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2020.07.23 2019가단56176
보증금반환
Text

Defendant B would pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 at the same time with the delivery of the real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to lease the instant real estate by setting the deposit amount of KRW 90,000,000, and the period from January 5, 2016 to January 5, 2017, from E, the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On January 5, 2016, the Plaintiff paid deposits to E, and received the instant real estate. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report on the instant real estate.

C. On January 4, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to lease the instant real estate from Defendant C by setting the deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000, and the period from January 5, 2017 to January 5, 2018. At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 increased to E.

Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate on November 30, 2017, which was concluded with E on December 5, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 10 (which can be recognized as the authenticity of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 6 under the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole), Eul evidence No. 1 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant B, a transferee of the instant real estate, is the Housing Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Housing Lease Act”).

(2) Preliminaryly, Defendant B did not succeed to the lessor status of the lease contract concluded between the Plaintiff and E, and thus, Defendant B entered into a lease contract with Defendant B as the broker of Defendant C for the period from January 5, 2018 to January 5, 2019 on the ground that the said contract was not effective, and that Defendant B did not properly perform the intermediary duty, the amount of the deposit incurred by the Plaintiff is equivalent to the amount of the deposit that Defendant C did not fully perform the intermediary duty.

arrow