logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.09.20 2016가단18142
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant is paid KRW 10 million from the plaintiff, and at the same time, the real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Issues of the instant case

가. 다음과 같은 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나, 갑 1∽7호증의 각 기재에 의하여 이를 인정할 수 있다.

① On August 23, 2010, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with Nonparty C, the owner of the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and filed a move-in report on October 1, 2010 upon delivery of the instant apartment on September 28, 2010.

(2) Upon the application of the Industrial Bank of Korea (the acquisition of the right to collateral security on an apartment of this case on December 19, 201) in the voluntary auction procedure initiated following the decision on voluntary auction rendered on April 2, 2015, and the defendant did not demand a distribution.

The appraisal price of the apartment of this case is KRW 227,00,000, and the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the apartment of this case in KRW 98,660,000 on July 12, 2016.

③ The instant lease agreement had expired on September 27, 2016.

B. On December 16, 2015, the Defendant submitted a confirmation of the fact of lease deposit amounting to KRW 110 million during the instant voluntary auction procedure, but there is no proof as to the fact of payment of KRW 51.5 million out of the above lease deposit.

Therefore, unless the defendant proves the above 50 million won payment, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff without any condition.

Defendant: The Defendant paid the lease deposit of KRW 100 million to C, and the obligation of the Defendant to return the lease deposit and the obligation of the delivery of the apartment of this case are in the simultaneous performance relationship.

The key issue of the instant case is the scope of return of the lease deposit to be performed simultaneously with the delivery of the instant apartment.

2. 판 단 쟁점에 관한 판단 : ▷을 1∽16호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 우리은행, 시흥시청에 대한 각 사실조회결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 피고가 D(이 사건 임대차계약 중개인)로부터 850만원을 차용하여 계약 당일에 이를 임대인 C에게, 그 다음날 250만 원을 각 송금하여...

arrow