beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) adding "Evidence No. 6-1, 3, 4, and 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance" to "(based on recognition) Nos. 4, 5, and 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b)" and "the instant contract" as "the instant lease contract;" and (c) No. 20 of the same face 5, 19 of the former Rental Housing Act after "the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 9541 of March 25, 2009)" (amended by Act No. 1328 of May 18, 2015). Article 20 (2) added to "the former Rental Housing Act" and "the former Rental Housing Act (amended by Act No. 1328 of May 18, 2015)" (hereinafter referred to as "the former Rental Housing Act").
I would like to say.
Around April 30, 2015, “the Plaintiff’s right to preferential sale is deemed to constitute a disposal act prohibited from infringing the Plaintiff’s right to preferential sale or in the supplementary registration of prohibited matters,” should be added in front of “the Plaintiff’s claim that is void” as of April 9, 2015, and the judgment of the first instance is partially accepted as of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the Plaintiff’s unilateral claim for increase of the deposit deposit, as described below, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to the reasons of the first instance judgment except for adding “3. additional determination” as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
A. Part 17 of the first instance court's decision No. 4, 17, 19, 19, 5, 12, 7, 12, and 13, 5, 5, 12, and 13, are deleted, and the arguments and judgments on this part are newly made as follows.
B. Article 5 of the instant lease contract, which serves as the basis for increasing the rental deposit of Defendant B, as the main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion, unilaterally raises the security deposit by the lessor, and the other party raises objection.