logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.03.30 2016가단6293
건물인도 등
Text

1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated on the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On May 23, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she acquired the ownership of the building listed in the separate sheet, and around that time, the Plaintiff entered into a monthly rent contract with the lessee on the part of 50.58 square meters in the ship connected each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, among the buildings listed in the separate sheet, among the buildings listed in the annexed sheet E, with the licensed real estate agent D and his/her assistant, who works for C real estate at that time, and delegated the Plaintiff the right to deposit and deposit for the lease on behalf of the Plaintiff and to receive the lease deposit.

Nevertheless, the Defendant asserts that it is a lessee who entered into a lease contract on the leased building of this case with E, a representative of the Plaintiff, and illegally occupies the leased building of this case. Thus, the Defendant seeks to deliver it.

However, if the monthly rent lease contract between the defendant and E is valid, the defendant did not pay the monthly rent for several months from November 2015, and thus, the above monthly rent contract is terminated as preliminary, and the delivery of the leased building is sought.

B. On July 26, 2012, the Defendant asserted that: (a) entered into a lease agreement with E to set the deposit for lease of the instant leased building as KRW 50 million; (b) on July 26, 2012, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million in the name of the Defendant under the name of F, the husband of E, and KRW 30 million in the name of G, the Defendant’s debtor, and KRW 10 million in the name of the Defendant’s name; and (c) on August 10, 2012, the Defendant resided in the instant leased building upon delivery from around that time.

In addition, around July 13, 2015, H, the husband of the Plaintiff, recognized the fact that he delegated the authority to the lease contract of the instant leased building to E with respect to the lease of the instant leased building and the fact that the lease deposit amount was 50 million won.

arrow