beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 93.5 million as well as 5% per annum from August 5, 2015 to September 7, 2017 and from the next day.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, on September 14, 2013, believed the promise of C, which is an introduction that changes the name of the lessee in the name of the Plaintiff, entered into a contract with the Defendant for the transfer of the right to lease between the Defendant and the public rental house, D6 complex D6, 608 Dong 1204 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and paid the Defendant the transfer price of KRW 93.5 million, and resided in the instant apartment from December 12, 2013 to December 12, 2013.
However, the original tenant with respect to the apartment of this case was E, and E was unable to repay the loan by the financial institution as security, and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, a lessor of this case, terminated the lease contract with E.
As a result, at the time of the acquisition of the right to lease on the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff did not obtain consent from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, which was the lessor, so the Plaintiff did not refund the deposit for lease on August 4, 2015 and moved out from the apartment of this case.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings]
2. In order for the Plaintiff, the transferee of the right of lease, to receive the refund of the lease deposit against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, the lessor shall obtain the consent of the lessor on the transfer of the right of lease, and the Defendant, the transferor, bears the duty to obtain the consent
(See Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1812 delivered on February 25, 1986. However, since the Defendant did not obtain the consent of the lessor on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the content of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da4103 delivered on June 14, 1996). Therefore, it may be reasonable that at least the Defendant impliedly assisted or aided the deception of C, as a copy of the written complaint of this case, the contract for the transfer of the right of lease was legally rescinded due to nonperformance of the performance.
Therefore, it is true.