logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.12.03 2015나11241
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the court's reasoning for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is that the "the plaintiff is the person who is the defendant" under Section 5, Section 5, Section 15, Section 4, Section 1, and Section 7, Section 4, Section 1, and Section 7, Section 7, and Section 4, Section 1, and Section 7 are as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for the following modifications. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

【The part used for the purpose of the sports facility at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff is as seen earlier. The fact that the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact is not disputed between the parties. Meanwhile, the fact that the store in this case was used for the purpose of the sports facility at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement with the Defendant, i.e., the fact that the store in this case was used for the sports facility, i.e., for the purpose of the entire pleadings, can be easily confirmed through the general building building building register, without verifying such circumstance. Nevertheless, without considering the fact that the Plaintiff started operating the cafeteria at the instant store in this case with the Defendant’s cooperation, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff did not inform the Plaintiff of the change in the purpose of the instant lease agreement as the purpose of the use of the store in this case if the Plaintiff reported the change in the purpose of use in accordance with the Building Act with the Defendant’s cooperation.

Furthermore, whether the Defendant did not implement the request even though the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to change the use of the store of this case.

arrow