(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.06.18 2018나110217

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) 대전지방법원 2019.06.18 2018나110217

추심금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant is obligated to return to C the lease deposit amount of KRW 150 million, which was paid under a lease agreement entered into with C and the Dong-gu E Apartment F (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff, a notary public against C, issued a collection order with respect to the amount of money that reaches KRW 1,039,884,830 of the claimed amount among the claims to return the lease deposit against C, with the title of execution of the No. 2521 of the No. 2015 deed No. 2521 on November 25, 2015 (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2017 Ta3078, May 18, 2017), and the claim attachment and collection order became final and conclusive as it is.

C. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff as the collection right holder the lease deposit amount of KRW 150 million and the delay damages for the lease deposit.

2. To accept the Plaintiff’s request for judgment, C must be able to exercise the right to refund the lease deposit against the Defendant.

In order to exercise the right to refund the lease deposit, the conditions of the lease contract shall be recognized, such as the conclusion of the lease contract, the payment of the lease deposit,

The plaintiff also claims damages for delay against the lease deposit. In addition to the above three requirements, the plaintiff is liable to prove that C has delivered the apartment of this case to the defendant or has provided performance.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize not only that C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the apartment of this case and paid the Defendant a deposit of KRW 150 million, but also that the lease contract was terminated, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion, the claim in this case must be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.

The judgment of the first instance court is unfair.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

유사 판례

-대법원 2017. 1. 25. 선고 2014다52933 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2015.09.01 2015나1701

-서울남부지방법원 2019.08.22 2019나178

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.17 2014가단248848

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.06.19 2018가단51701