(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.06.10 2012가단20496

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) 서울북부지방법원 2014.06.10 2012가단20496

임대차보증금반환

Text

The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time. 80,000,000 won shall be applied to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant house”) on December 13, 2006 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 15, 2007.

B. On March 4, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty C, who represented by the Defendant, to lease the instant housing with the term of contract from May 13, 2008 to May 12, 2010, and to pay KRW 70 million for the said lease deposit and to reside in the instant housing on June 3, 2008.

C. On May 13, 2010, the Plaintiff increased the lease deposit with C representing the Defendant to KRW 80 million, and entered into a renewal contract with the period of the contract as of May 13, 2012, and paid KRW 10 million increased.

On March 2, 2012, the Plaintiff had no intent to renew the lease contract with respect to the instant housing. As such, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the lease deposit was returned to the Defendant on May 13, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition: Descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Part of Evidence No. 4, and purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that, since the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement and a renewal agreement on behalf of the Defendant, who is the owner of the instant housing, and paid KRW 80 million, the Defendant, as a lessor of the said lease agreement, should return the said lease deposit to the Plaintiff, who is the lessee upon the expiration of the contract term. 2) The Defendant did not conclude a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant housing, and the Plaintiff concluded a trust agreement with the Plaintiff only with the end of C, which is the actual owner of the instant housing, and the lease deposit was paid only to C through the real estate broker, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

B. In addition to the above basic facts 1, the evidence as seen earlier and the judgment.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.08.25 2013가단99965

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.07 2019가단4678

-인천지방법원 2015.06.26 2015가단206637

-서울고등법원 2016.11.23 2015나25831

-전주지방법원 2020.06.26 2019가단22199