(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나309713

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) 대구지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나309713

건물철거 및 토지인도

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Judgment of the court of first instance No. 1-A

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the pertinent part is modified or added as follows. 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 used or added;

A. On No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 12" was added to "No. 16."

B. On the 5th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added.

"On the other hand, according to the purport of each statement and argument in the evidence Nos. 3 and 11, the defendant may be recognized as having deposited the plaintiff as the principal deposit, and the lease contract for each lot of land of this case between June and December 2015 is concluded between June 29, 2015, and KRW 2,600,000 as the name of "one hundred million monthly rent from June 29, 2015 to December 6, 2015, and KRW 90,000 as the name of "one hundred million monthly rent from October 6, 2016 to September 10, 2016." However, as seen later, as seen earlier, the defendant cannot be deemed as having repaid part of the "amount of partial repayment due to the illegal possession of each lot of land of this case" through the above deposit.

“”

C. On the 6th page of the first instance judgment, the following is added.

"If a lease contract is deemed to have been concluded on June 29, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as stated in the lease contract (No. 2) with respect to the site of each of the instant ground objects, on the one-year basis, as alleged by the Defendant, the lease contract was concluded on June 29, 2015, and about two years and five months have already passed as of the date of closing argument in the trial, and it is true that the said lease term has already been expired (the special terms of the above lease) (the lease term is extended except for the case where the lessor sells the site of each of the instant ground objects or constructs a new building)."

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.16 2016나31793

-서울고등법원(인천) 2020.09.10 2019나14385

-서울고등법원 2017.07.05 2016누54161

-대구지방법원 2017.09.20 2017나306042

-대구지방법원 2017.07.19 2016나13978