(영문) 춘천지방법원 영월지원 2017.02.15 2015가단2282

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) 춘천지방법원 영월지원 2017.02.15 2015가단2282

부동산 및 낚시터 명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 1,000,000 and its amount from August 14, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

In fact, on October 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant for the lease term from November 30, 2014 to October 30, 2015, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 28,00,000 for the lease deposit (hereinafter referred to as the “lease contract in this case”) with respect to the fishing place located in D, E, F, G, and H (hereinafter referred to as the “instant fishing place”). The Defendant was paid KRW 28,00,000 for the sublease deposit.

According to the instant sub-lease contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to place the existing body of water in the instant fishing place at the expiration of the contract, and pay 100,000 won per month to the Plaintiff as CCTV car usage fees.

【The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute, Gap’s evidence No. 4, and all pleadings as to the primary claim is the purport of the sub-lease contract of this case. The Plaintiff purchased water and 41,800,000 won at his own expense prior to the conclusion of the sub-lease contract of this case and sold it to the fishing place of this case. The Defendant disposed of the remainder of the above water and 200 marith, excluding the water and 100 to 200 marith, at his own expense. Thus, the Defendant breached the duty under the sub-lease contract of this case, and then the Defendant primarily claimed damages equivalent to the purchase cost of the above water and 100 marith.

Judgment

According to the result of the verification by this Court, the fact that only 100 to 200 maris exist in the instant fishing place on December 7, 2016 is recognized.

However, the above facts and evidence Nos. 12 and 15 merely stated the above facts of recognition and evidence, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff discharged the instant fishing place in proportion to KRW 41,800,000, excessive fishing, etc.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant, as the lessee, arbitrarily disposed of the discharge machine, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 14, and Nos. 1, 5, and 6 are written.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.09.24 2013구합3796

-인천지방법원 2014.07.18 2014노952

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2013.01.18 2012고정198

-춘천지방법원 2020.09.16 2020고단567

-대전지방법원 2014.08.12 2014노599