logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 홍성지원 2018.04.03 2017가단6993
건물명도 등
Text

1. Defendant A shall deliver to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. Defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 9, 2009, the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) entered into a lease agreement with Defendant A on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the effect that the lease deposit is KRW 13 million and KRW 110,000,000,000 for monthly rent (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. B obtained a loan of KRW 9 million from the Plaintiff on June 30, 2010. Defendant A jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff and transferred the Plaintiff’s obligation to return KRW 13 million deposit under the instant lease agreement to the Defendant Corporation, and on the same day, notified the Defendant Corporation of the assignment of the said obligation, and the said notification was issued on July 1, 2010.

C. Meanwhile, the instant lease agreement between Defendant A and Defendant Corporation was renewed from July 12, 2016 to June 30, 2018, as the lease deposit amount of KRW 14,976,00, monthly rent of KRW 126,720, and the lease term of KRW 126,720, and from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition]

1. Defendant A: Confession;

2. Defendant Corporation: Fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap's evidence 1 through 4, and purport of the whole pleadings.

2. After a lessor was notified of the transfer of the claim for return of the deposit, even if the lessor and the lessee have made an explicit or implied agreement with regard to the renewal of the lease contract or extension of the contract period, the effect of such agreement cannot be affected by the assignee of the claim for return of the deposit. In order for the obligee to exercise the obligor’s right to preserve his/her claim, the obligee’s insolvency is ordinarily required. However, in a case where the obligee who acquired the claim for return of the deposit for lease claims seeks the name of the lessee’s house name in order to claim the performance thereof, the obligee’s claim for return of the deposit for lease is not related to the preservation of the claim and

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253 delivered on April 25, 1989

arrow