(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.10 2017가단211671

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.10 2017가단211671

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 70,000,000.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

On October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant’s agent, who is the owner of the building in Gwangju City and 302 (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the condition that the Plaintiff leased the instant housing under the terms of KRW 12 months of lease period, KRW 70,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and paid KRW 70,000 as deposit money to D.

Since the instant lease contract terminated on October 5, 2016 with the expiration date, the Defendant, a lessor, is obligated to refund KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant is merely a title trustee of the instant housing, and did not grant D the right to lease the instant housing, and thus, the Defendant was not a contracting party to the instant lease agreement, but was not paid a lease deposit. The Defendant comprehensively delegated D the right to the instant housing as a whole.

Even if the Defendant terminated the title trust agreement with respect to the instant housing, the Defendant did not have the authority to conclude the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant, since D was in the state of lapse of the right of representation at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, and D abused its right of representation on behalf of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff knew or could have known his intent to commit a breach of trust with D, and thus, the validity of the instant lease agreement does not extend to the Defendant. ③ In concluding the instant lease agreement with D, the Plaintiff did not examine whether D was entitled to the Defendant’s agent even if the Defendant and D were not the same person, and the lease deposit was paid to D, not the Defendant. In light of this, the Plaintiff’s claim is not permissible against the principle of good faith.

Judgment

D. As to whether there was a right to enter into the instant lease agreement, each of the descriptions in Gap evidence 1 and 2.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2014.10.16 2013나19050

-대구지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가단130835

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.09.15 2014가단9481

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.01.12 2016가단222469

-서울북부지방법원 2014.06.10 2012가단20496