logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.12.19 2014나5156
전부금 등
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B’s husband and wife, who completed the move-in report on May 28, 2010 on the real estate listed in the attached list, owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant house”) and resides until now.

B. On the basis of the executory payment order in Busan District Court’s Dong Branch 2013 tea 1010, which was held against Defendant B, the Plaintiff was issued an assignment order of claims and assignment order of claims (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) with the amount of KRW 40,00,00,00 for the lease deposit refund claim amounting to be refunded by Defendant B from Defendant C as the Busan District Court 2013TT 21735, August 23, 2013. The instant assignment order was delivered to Defendant C on October 17, 2013, and was finalized on October 26, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, evidence 2-1, 2, 3, each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with the amount of KRW 40 million as to the instant housing owned by Defendant C, and that Defendant B’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit against Defendant C was all the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant assignment order, and thus, the Plaintiff, as a whole creditor, sought to deliver the instant housing to Defendant C by subrogationing the Defendant C, and Defendant C must pay the Plaintiff the entire amount of KRW 40 million at the same time as the transfer of the instant housing from Defendant B.”

B. Defendant B and Defendant C entered into a lease agreement with regard to the instant housing only with the aforementioned evidence alone.

In light of the fact that Defendant B is the father of Defendant C, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B paid KRW 40 million to Defendant C, and rather, Defendant B is the father of Defendant C, the instant house owned by Defendant C, free of charge.

arrow