(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.04.16 2015나2000470

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) 서울고등법원 2015.04.16 2015나2000470

전세권자 확인

Text

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.

Reasons

1. Grounds for this part of the underlying facts D.

The following parts shall be excluded from the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such part shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance

1. ‘Basic Facts' D.

subsection (1) shall be filled by the following:

“On the other hand, the lease contract of the instant apartment was terminated on June 30, 2014, and H, at the Plaintiff’s request, prepared and issued a cash storage certificate stating that the lease contract of the instant apartment would be paid KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff according to the judgment of the instant lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the lessor will keep until the lawsuit is transferred.”

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was a director of the instant apartment and concluded the instant lease contract with the help of the Defendant, who was shot in the real estate real estate agent office at the time.

In the apartment of this case, the plaintiff resided in the apartment of this case, and the deposit money for the lease was prepared by the plaintiff, and the defendant, who was the party to the lease contract of this case, prepared the lease contract of this case in the name of the tenant at will.

Since the defendant asserts that he is the right holder of the above deposit, the plaintiff has a benefit to confirm that he is the right holder of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis under the previous lease contract of this case.

B. Determination 1 is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating it, and in the event that the content of a contract is written between the parties to the contract, it shall not be cited in the text used in writing, but it shall be only objective that the parties have given to the act of indicating it in writing, regardless of the internal intent of the parties

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2020.12.02 2019나2056648

-광주고등법원(전주) 2017.10.19 2016나12378

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.21 2017나83555

-서울고등법원 2019.08.23 2019나2019410

-수원지방법원 2015.12.03 2015나14775