(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.09.25 2019나40 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산지방법원 2019.09.25 2019나40

임대차보증금반환

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. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 1996, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D on September 3, 1996, with a deposit deposit amount of KRW 9 million and two years with respect to the building not registered on the land of Seo-gu Busan (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by C without monthly rent.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

F. On March 24, 1995, the F Association (G Association: G Association) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, which is a maximum debt amount of KRW 12 million, debtor D, and mortgagee G Association, with respect to the land of this case, Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant site”) owned by C on March 24, 1995, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 10, 199 by winning the instant site in the auction procedure for H Real Estate in Busan District Court.

C. C Deceased on June 24, 2002 (hereinafter “the deceased”), the Defendant, I, and D, who were his children, jointly inherited the deceased’s property.

While the instant lease contract was implicitly renewed after the lapse of the first two years, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the said lease through a duplicate of the instant complaint, on May 16, 2018, on May 17, 2018, and on June 14, 2018, respectively.

E. Around June 2019, the Plaintiff removed from the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] The court's significant facts, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, fact-finding results of the first instance court's Jdong community service center, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) Party’s assertion (1) D, on behalf of the Plaintiff, concluded the instant lease agreement with D, and paid KRW 9 million for the lease deposit. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed after the expiration of the period, and was terminated through the duplicate of the instant complaint, and the Defendant is liable to refund the said lease deposit.

(2) The instant lease agreement is null and void since the Defendant Deceased did not delegate his authority to conclude the instant lease agreement to D.

The Plaintiff’s death.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.05.27 2015가단17675

-서울북부지방법원 2018.01.18 2017가단18160

-수원지방법원 2020.04.23 2019가단24250

-광주지방법원 2016.09.02 2016가단5479

-부산지방법원 2018.11.15 2018나2995