(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.23 2016나15447

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) 수원지방법원 2017.11.23 2016나15447

추심금

Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following changes: “C appealed at present C, and the Seoul High Court 2015Na21730, which was pending in the court of first instance.” The Seoul High Court dismissed C’s appeal on November 22, 2016. The Supreme Court dismissed C’s appeal on March 30, 2017 on the ground that C’s appeal was dismissed on the ground that the trial was not continued on March 30, 2017, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 6, 2017.” Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On September 20, 2008, C, the Plaintiff’s obligor, leased KRW 25 million (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”) from the Defendant on September 20, 2008, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant housing”). Since the lease contract was explicitly renewed every two years, C, with the intent to evade compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s claim to return the said lease deposit, concluded the lease contract with the same deposit for the instant housing (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

In other words, the instant lease agreement is deemed as a false agreement or fraudulent act to evade the enforcement of C, and thus, the validity of the lease agreement concluded between C and the Defendant is maintained. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff, the obligee collecting the lease deposit, the amount of KRW 25 million based on the instant seizure and collection order, and damages for delay.

B. First, we examine whether the lessor of the initial lease agreement and the instant lease agreement are the Defendant.

If Gap evidence No. 3 and Eul evidence No. 1 are added to the purport of the whole pleadings, the "leased" column of the first lease agreement is stated as "D", and

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.01.22 2014나8964

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.11.21 2018가합9199

-서울서부지방법원 2019.05.03 2018나40123

-울산지방법원 2015.11.24 2015가단15183

-대구지방법원 2019.03.14 2018가합207643