임차권 확인의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance emphasizing or adding the Plaintiff’s argument emphasizing at the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph 2 below
On the second page of the judgment of the first instance, the “real estate indicated in the attached Form No. 11 (hereinafter “instant real estate”)” is regarded as the “instant real estate”.
Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court’s judgment “as of July 2015” is deemed to be “as of July 2014.”
No. 3 of the judgment of the first instance is the first instance court's "sub-lessees" as "sub-lessees."
If the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be a “request for return of unjust enrichment” under Article 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “request for return of unjust enrichment.”
No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance court, No. 16 of the first instance court stated the "side name" as the "side name".
Part 5 of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to be " January 5, 2015" in Part 15 as " January 5, 2015."
Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase "Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 16, and 17 (including each number)" in Part 8 is deemed to read "each description of Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 16, and 17 (including each number)".
3. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff used an expression of sub-lease contract in the statement of grounds of appeal, which was concluded with the Defendant, but the contract that the Plaintiff asserted with the Defendant that it was concluded with the Defendant is a lease contract, and thus,
In relation to the above, the plaintiff asserts that even if the defendant either did not have the authority to enter into a lease agreement with F or did not have the authority to enter into a lease agreement with F, the plaintiff was justified to believe F was entitled to enter into a lease agreement, and that at least the defendant ratified an invalid lease agreement.
B. We examine the following circumstances acknowledged in the first instance court’s judgment and the purport of the entire argument as a whole.