beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.16 2014나2016195

손해배상(기)

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. The reasons why the court shall explain this case in this case are set forth in Article 3-B of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Part of paragraph (5)(2)(3) of the first instance court's decision(3) as follows: (3) of the reasons for the first instance court's decision(3).

2) The part of the first instance judgment (No. 6, No. 20 to No. 7, No. 19) is as follows 3-C. 3 of the first instance judgment's reasoning (No. 7, No. 10, No. 13), except that the second instance court's reasoning (No. 7, No. 7, and No. 10, No. 13), and the second instance court's reasoning is as stated in the first instance judgment's reasoning, and therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. According to the statement in the evidence No. 1, Article 13 of the sales contract for the building of this case drawn up between the Plaintiff and B is a special contract; Article 13 of the sales contract for the building of this case is a special contract; B confirms the details of the lease for the building of this case (paragraph 3); B succeeds to the terms of the lease contract entered into by the Defendant (paragraph 4); and in particular, the terms of the lease for the plaintiff's store of this case on the first floor of the building of this case, which

(5) The facts, etc. described in paragraph (5) are recognized.

However, the following facts are acknowledged based on Gap evidence Nos. 13 through 16, Eul evidence No. 1, evidence No. 1, witness C of the first instance trial, and testimony No. D. The defendant sold the building of this case to B on April 18, 2012, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of B on August 30, 2012, and notified the plaintiff that the building of this case was sold to B on September 6, 2012. On September 25, 2012, Eul purchased the building of this case notified the plaintiff that it would proceed with the renewal contract by adjusting rent, management fee, etc. according to the neighboring market rate to the plaintiff on September 25, 2012. ② The plaintiff's employee requested the succession of the lease contract of this case to B on several occasions from October 19, 2012, but the plaintiff continued to continue to perform the lease contract of this case.