beta
Text
1. The defendant's KRW 34,800,000 and about this, 5% per annum from April 1, 2020 to May 13, 2020 to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s lease agreement following C’s brokerage is concluded on May 10, 2017, and the Plaintiff’s multi-family house E in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, D (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
Of F, a lease agreement is concluded with respect to F, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 87 million and the term of lease from May 31, 2017 to May 30, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
(2) The instant lease agreement was concluded as a broker of a licensed real estate agent C, and only stated that C’s “the matters of rights for the articles that are not publicly notified of the actual relation of rights” in the description of confirmation of the object of brokerage prepared by C regarding the said lease agreement was “the matters of rights for the articles that are not publicly notified of the actual relation of rights” as the whole of the building.
B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the instant real estate and its site had been completed on May 31, 201, 201, which was 130,000 (130,000,000 the maximum debt amount). (2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the instant real estate was a multi-family house of 13 households, and multiple lessees have completed and resided in the instant real estate first than the Plaintiffs. At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the sum of the deposit deposits of the lessees having the move-in report or the fixed date was 485,00,000 won.
C. (1) On December 2018, the auction procedure of this case was commenced with respect to the instant real estate and its site. On December 21, 2018, the base appraisal value as of December 21, 2018 was assessed to KRW 603,713,060, and a decision of permission for sale with the selling price of KRW 311,90,000 was issued. (2) In the said auction procedure, the auction court distributed dividends on December 5, 2019.
The plaintiff made a demand for distribution of the lease deposit with the lessee, but the mortgagee of the right to collateral security and other lessees.