부당이득금 및 임차보증금반환 등
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remaining designated parties against the Defendants are dismissed.
2...
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part concerning which the court stated in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. The height portion of the first instance court's decision is the second and fourth parts of the first instance court's decision, each of the "Fisher Agriculture" in the 19th and the 7th parts of the first instance court's decision is the "Fisher wholesale
On the 4th judgment of the first instance court, the "amounting to 50%" in the 9th to 10th judgment is "amounting to 50% of the above overdue rent from the lease deposit of the plaintiffs."
Part VII through VIII of the decision of the court of first instance shall be as follows.
Based on the above legal principle, we examine whether the part of the instant lease agreement constitutes an unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act. However, as seen above, the fact that the difference is the difference under the instant lease agreement, more than two times the difference under the previous lease agreement, was increased. However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments as seen above, the plaintiffs concluded the instant lease agreement by mutual consent with the Defendants for their own needs to receive compensation for obstacles and business arising from the expropriation of the instant land. For a long time, the plaintiffs operated the instant vinyl and the instant land by leasing or leasing the instant vinyl and the instant land, and anticipated that the amount of compensation should be paid according to the designation of the housing zone, and therefore, it is expected that the Plaintiffs would have concluded the instant lease agreement by reasonably weighing and balancing the rent to be borne by the Plaintiffs through the instant lease agreement and the profits that the Plaintiffs would gain. In light of the above fact, the above recognition alone was in an imminent situation at the time when the Plaintiffs concluded the instant lease agreement.
under the condition of rashion or influence.