logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2016.08.24 2015가단9099
임대차보증금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D Co., Ltd. and the Defendant enter into a studio management contract 1) around December 20, 2006, as delegated by the Defendant with respect to the lease of 4-dong multi-family houses (16 households, studio) located in Seosan-si E located in Seosan-si owned by the Defendant, and KRW 38 million out of the annual rent of 1 year above studio (32 million won in a management contract entered into in 2015) to the Defendant.

(2) D) around March 24, 2008, upon the establishment of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and accordingly, C has dealt with the studio rental business owned by the Defendant.

3) In addition to the room room owned by the Defendant, C entered into a lease agreement with each owner on the lease of the F5-dong house located in the H located in Seosan City owned by G, the F1-dong house located in I, and the F-3 multi-family house located in J, with the authority of lease delegated by each owner. (B) On May 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million with respect to subparagraph 106 of the F5-dong store owned by G and the lease term from June 21, 2014 to June 20, 2016.

On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the deposit to the Agricultural Cooperative of D, and occupied F5 Dong 106 around that time.

2) However, G terminated the said lease contract between the Plaintiff on the ground that the former lease contract was concluded even though it did not grant C the authority to conclude the said lease contract with respect to F 5 Dong 106.3) From August 2014, G entered into a lease contract with the Plaintiff with the same content as to F 4 Dong 101 (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant, the structure of which is similar to F 5 Dong 106, which is similar to that of the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and agreed to receive KRW 40 million from the prior account in lieu of the receipt of the former lease deposit with respect to the instant building.

The Plaintiff occupied the building of this case around that time.

[Ground of recognition] dispute.

arrow