(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.12.03 2015나105207

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.12.03 2015나105207

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim raised at the trial is dismissed.

Reasons

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is that the instant lease agreement was terminated on October 8, 2014 by the Defendant on the ground that the instant lease agreement was terminated on the ground that the instant lease agreement was delayed, and that the instant lease agreement was terminated on October 8, 2014.

"Additional" is added, and it is also accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant addss the judgment as stated in the following 2.

The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that C succeeds to the instant lease agreement at the time of sale of the instant building, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status of the said lease agreement.

As alleged earlier, C’s termination of the instant lease agreement was null and void or withdrawn, and thus cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, and even if the termination is recognized, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the deposit for lease is refunded from the Plaintiff.

In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff asserted that, while selling and selling the instant building in the preparatory brief dated April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed with C to refund the deposit money of the Defendant between C and C; (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million equivalent to the deposit for lease after the first instance judgment was rendered; (c) however, in light of the fact that C sent the instant lease contract to C as a lessor on October 8, 2014 on the date following the date following the conclusion of the sales contract with the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant lease contract; (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise; and (e) the said agreement to return the deposit can only be deemed as merely a performance acceptance.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

The defendant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2016.04.06 2015나3495

-대전지방법원 2020.11.11 2019나108600

-서울북부지방법원 2019.08.28 2018나39172

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.12 2014가단220550

-대구지방법원 2016.01.21 2015나9637