logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.23 2017나76618
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E, the owner of the apartment house located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment house”) via the brokerage of Codefendant D (hereinafter “D”) on February 28, 2014, with respect to the instant apartment house 204 as to the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000, and the term of lease from March 22, 2014 to March 21, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E, the owner of the instant apartment house located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment house”). On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a move-in agreement and obtained a fixed date.

B. At the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, the instant multi-family house is a building built on the 7th floor above the ground, and is a Class II neighborhood living facilities (office, room, and room) on the general building ledger. However, the instant multi-family house was used on the 2 to 7th floor by illegally altering the studio 6 units on each floor. At the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, 40 lessees were living in each unit of the instant multi-family house, but the amount of the deposit, the date of transfer, the fixed date of confirmation, etc. of the said lessees were as stated in the attached Form.

C. 1) A, a licensed real estate agent, has explained to the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, the details of establishment of the right to collateral security on the instant multi-family house, but did not explain the amount of deposit money of the prior fixed date lessee and the order of priority based on the fixed date, which are not publicly notified by other units of the instant multi-family house. 2) According to D’s description of confirmation of object of brokerage prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, D’s owner in the column of “matters concerning ownership” among the registry.

arrow