beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including a claim that has been changed in exchange at the trial, shall be modified as follows:
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The reasoning of the judgment regarding the unpaid rent claim is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, except for dismissal or addition as set forth below. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
The 5th 6 parallels “Plaintiffs” are as follows: “Plaintiffs”; “Plaintiffs” are as “Plaintiffs”; “Plaintiffs” are as “Plaintiffs”; “Plaintiffs” are as “Plaintiffs”; and “Plaintiffs” are as “Plaintiffs.”
The 1st to 7th parallels at the bottom of the 6th parallel shall be as follows:
“(3) However, considering the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 22, 23, 25-1, 25-3, and 24, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiffs on each of the land of this case, and sublets part of the land of this case and each of the buildings of this case to F and G. In each of the above buildings, the Defendant was operating the Car Center of H, F and G, F and G, and even after the Plaintiffs closed the vehicle with access on May 20, 205 (the removal of the boundary installed at the boundary of India and roadway with the permission to occupy and use the road was revoked, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s entrance was closed with access to the part of the original boundary.
() The Defendant still continued to operate his/her business by continuously receiving rubber plates, wooden plates, etc. below the boundary line (the boundary line between India and the roadway) so as not to interfere with the entry into the vehicle, and the Plaintiffs were subjected to the Seoul Eastern District Court’s decision to substitute the removal of each of the above buildings on the ground of the instant conciliation (Seoul East Eastern District Court’s I Order F and G on May 8, 2015).