건물명도(인도)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: ① the statement of evidence Nos. 12 and 13, which is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's claim for the insurance premium guarantee agreement with C and the defendant as evidence added at the court of the first instance; ② the relevant part is changed as provided in paragraph (2); ③ the judgment on the argument emphasized by the defendant in the court of the first instance is the same as the part of the reasons for the first instance judgment except for addition as Paragraph (3). Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(Attachment) 2. 2. The remainder of KRW 4,00,000 after deducting KRW 1,00,000,000 from the portion of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 3. 4,000, the remainder of KRW 4,064,00 shall be written “..........”
The portion “(3) of the first instance judgment No. 5 shall be deleted.”
The remainder of KRW 4,00,000 after deducting KRW 1,000,000 for 4,000 for 4,064,00 for 4,00 for 4,00 for 4,00 for 4,00 for 4,00 for 4,00 for 4,00 for 1.
The evidence submitted by the Defendant D alone, on No. 4 of the first instance judgment No. 9, the part “” was written only by the statement of the evidence No. 2.
In the fourth sentence of the judgment of the first instance, the following 8 to 5 shall not be included:
The argument is asserted.
First of all, according to the health class, Gap evidence 7, and Eul evidence 12 as to the assertion of excess rent, it may be recognized that C paid KRW 380,00 per month in the name of the defendant from June to October 2018. However, in light of the fact that the above payment period is reasonable and the defendant himself claims that the above rent was paid at the plaintiff's request, see the second written reply of November 20, 2019, it may be deemed that C agreed to increase the rent between the plaintiff and C on June 2017, and that C received the refund of the lease deposit as seen above, there is a special reason to deem that C received the refund of the lease deposit.