beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.28 2015나2056107

건물명도

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

Reasons

1. The grounds for this court's explanation is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the dismissal or addition of corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following paragraph 2, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance court, the part that is dismissed or added, the term “Defendant World War” in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be read as “Defendant”; “Defendant Primary Call Co-Defendant of the first instance trial;” and “Defendant” as “Defendant and Co-Defendant of the first instance trial,” respectively.

The third last sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be " March 1, 2014" as " March 1, 2009."

The 11th to 18th of the 7th judgment of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of entry into evidence Nos. 6 and arguments, the Plaintiff appears to have reviewed the introduction of the Service Level Convention (SA) at the lease shopping mall level (SA) at the end of a year within a period not exceeding five years, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff promised to renew or renew the contract of this case against the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff promised to renew or renew the contract of this case.

In addition, even if the plaintiff is assumed to have given trust in the renewal or renewal of the contract of this case as alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff is actively asserting the termination of the contract of this case, and the defendant delays the termination of the contract of this case for at least four months from November 2013 to the above trust, so long as the plaintiff delays the termination of the contract of this case, the contract of this case cannot be asserted for the existence of the contract of this case with the above trust.