(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.06.28 2017나301115

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 2017.06.28 2017나301115

건물명도

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the principal lawsuit shall be modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).

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. Of the written judgment of the first instance, the first instance court stated that ① “20,000,000 won” in the third part of the third part as “2,00,000 won”, ② “Operation is in operation” in the fourth part of the fourth part, and paid KRW 2,00,000 to the Plaintiff by April 2017 (except in the case of January 2016).”

B. The part of the first instance judgment Nos. 4, 12, and 18 shall be reversed as follows.

"In accordance with the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated as of November 30, 2015, which is the expiration date of the lease term, and thereafter, the defendant who continues to operate coffee specialty in the real estate of this case, barring any special circumstances, shall pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 2,00,000 per month from January 1, 2016 to May 1, 2017, and KRW 2,000,000 per month from May 1, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the real estate of this case. ② The plaintiff shall be liable to deliver the real estate of this case at the same time from May 1, 2017 to the date of delivery of the real estate of this case. ② The above amount of KRW 40,000,000 (= KRW 40,000,000 as lease deposit - KRW 2,00,000, which is equivalent to the rent of this case from January 1, 2016.

“”

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

“(It is difficult to see that each accessory is objectively necessary for the operation of transformation stations, pumping stations, water purification stations, public toilets, etc.”

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

C. The defendant is entitled to exercise the right to indemnity following the defendant's attachment.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.09 2016나9512

-대구지방법원 2017.07.19 2016나13978

-대구지방법원 2017.04.05 2016나305806

-서울고등법원(인천) 2020.10.29 2019나14934

-대구지방법원 2017.08.23 2017나300464