logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.14 2019나31398
토지 및 건물인도
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the appellate court's additional claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court concerning the plaintiff's claim for delivery of real estate stated in the purport of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The plaintiff does not have any assertion as to the title of the claim for the additional monetary payment in the appellate court, and this part of the claim cannot be accepted.

This case’s lease agreement is valid since the Plaintiff’s right to terminate is not recognized even if it is pre-determined as a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rental fee upon termination of the lease agreement of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim based on a different premise cannot be accepted.

3. If so, the judgment of the first instance is just and cannot accept the claims added by the plaintiff at the appellate court. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal and the appellate court's additional claims are dismissed in entirety.

arrow