건물명도등
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case mentioned in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
A. On the third and third sides of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “ February 13, 2009.” shall be deemed to read “ January 13, 2009.”
B. On the 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the “record No. 7” in the 16th page of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as the “record No. 9”.
C. From 7th to 13th of the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment was followed as follows.
D) The evidence related to the above 7 (Evidence A No. 9) seems to be the method of questioning or the attitude of the respondent's answer (prestigious memory).
In light of the above facts-finding, G did not have sufficient evidence to the extent to which it was followed, and G moved-in report was made to Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I, a previous residence of the Defendants on February 16, 2009 (the result of the fact-finding inquiry with respect to the head of the J Dong in the trial of the party).
D. From 7th to 20th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance was followed as follows.
(F) The claim of the above 9 regarding urban gas charges is insufficient to view that Defendant B had already transferred urban gas users’ names on February 15, 2009, which was after the execution of the instant lease contract from December 24, 2008 to January 23, 2009 (No. 4-1) and on March 9, 2009, after Defendant B moved into the instant house (in light of evidence No. 12, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to view that Defendant B had already moved into the instant house on or around December 2008.
“”
3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the principal lawsuit is dismissed as it is without merit. The defendant Eul's counterclaim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal against the principal lawsuit of this case and the counterclaim is all dismissed.