(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2019.08.21 2019가단50466

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) 광주지방법원목포지원 2019.08.21 2019가단50466

청구이의

Text

1. On November 1, 2013, the Defendant’s order of payment (No. 2013 tea 2236) against the Plaintiffs is based on the order of payment issued by the Gwangju District Court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 30, 200, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with respect to approximately KRW 33 square meters among the buildings owned by E and the plaintiffs' father and representative E on December 30, 2004 (hereinafter "the building in this case") with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 13,00,000, and the lease term of KRW 24 months with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 13,000 among the buildings owned by E and the plaintiffs (hereinafter "the building in this case"), and filed an application for a payment order with the plaintiffs seeking the return of KRW 13,00,000 on the ground of their claim.

B. Accordingly, on November 1, 2013, the Gwangju District Court rendered a payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 13,000,000 per each party” (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the instant payment order was finalized around February 18, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion E is not the father's degree and the representative of the plaintiffs, and is co-owners with 8/24 shares among the buildings of this case, and there is no authority to independently conclude a lease agreement on the building of this case.

Even in the lease contract submitted by the defendant, only E is written as lessor, and there was no provision on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case against the plaintiffs should be rejected.

B. The plaintiffs alleged by the defendant grant the right of representation to E as to the building of this case, and even if the plaintiffs did not grant the right of representation to E, they are relative relations with the plaintiffs, and they are co-owners of the building of this case, in light of the fact that they are co-owners of the building of this case, the plaintiffs are obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 13 million paid by the defendant to

3. Judgment on the issue

A. A payment order has not become final and conclusive and thus its claim objection is not raised.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2019.02.15 2019가단130

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.22 2017가단23947

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.10 2015가합543172

-광주지방법원해남지원 2019.04.02 2018가단201075

-광주지방법원 2016.06.15 2015가단30836