손해배상(기) 등
1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the order to deliver below among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
2...
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is that "F of this Court" was "J of the Seoul Western District Court" in Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, "F of this Court" in Part 3, "F of this Court" in Part 8, "F of this Court" in Part 3, "F of this Court" in Part 11, "B of this Court" in Part 3, "B of this Court moved into on October 20, 2010 and is still residing until now," in Part 16, "B of this Court" in Part 3, "B of this Court" in Part 16, and the period of lease on October 25, 2012 expires, but the defendant was unable to return the lease deposit to B, and the defendant is in possession of the apartment house of this case until now," in Part 3, 20, "each entry, witness testimony (excluding the part that is not trusted in the front and rear)" in the main sentence of the Civil Procedure Act, and the testimony of the first instance and the corresponding part 4."
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's request for extradition
A. The Defendant’s assertion that “B’s possession of the apartment of this case” is lawful. As such, the Defendant’s assertion “B at the time of termination of possession of the apartment of this case” is a condition other than an unspecified lawsuit, and thus is unlawful or inappropriate, and does not meet the need for a prior claim, which is a lawful requirement for a future performance lawsuit. 2) A lawsuit seeking performance in the future may be brought only where a prior claim is necessary. The case requiring a prior claim refers to the case where the obligor cannot expect a voluntary performance when the due date has not arrived or the conditions have arrived due to the obligor’s dispute over the existence of the obligation in the case of a claim for non-performance of conditions
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da3891, Jan. 15, 2004). The Plaintiff acquired the right of retention and sought the return of possession on the ground that the Defendant deprived of possession; however, the Defendant’s direct possession was specified as the time of recovery of possession.