logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.08.17 2017가단51613
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, and Eul evidence 3, and there is no counter-proof.

On December 18, 2006, Nonparty C completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On October 4, 2013, Nonparty C filed a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff, who was the spouse, with the Seoul Family Court 2012ddan6587, divorce, and consolation money. On October 4, 2013, Nonparty C, on the grounds of the division of property as of October 31, 2013, followed the procedure for transfer of ownership for 1/2 shares out of the instant real estate as of October 31, 2013, and the conciliation was concluded, including the content that the Plaintiff would take over 1/2 out of the obligation to refund the deposit for the lease of

(hereinafter referred to as “instant divorce conciliation”). C.

On March 28, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty C to lease the instant real estate with the lease deposit of KRW 180,00,000 and the lease term of KRW 25,00 from April 25, 2014 to April 25, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On November 19, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of partial transfer of ownership on October 4, 2013 with respect to one-half portion of the instant real property on the grounds of the division of property.

E. On March 11, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff and Nonparty C a certificate to the effect that there was no intent to renew the term of the instant lease agreement, and thus, the Defendant returned the lease deposit to the Plaintiff and Nonparty C.

F. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement was null and void as a co-owner of the 1/2 share in the instant real estate, and the Defendant returned the lease deposit to the Plaintiff on March 22, 2016.

arrow