(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.11.21 2019나59325

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) 수원지방법원 2019.11.21 2019나59325

기타(금전)

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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s assertion added or emphasized by this court, and thus, the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited pursuant to the main sentence of

2. On April 26, 2012, following the second 13 pages of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease a lease deposit of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million (excluding value-added tax), and from April 26, 2012 to April 26, 2014, the term of lease of KRW 40,000,000 from April 26, 2012 to April 26, 2014.

The "Additional Tax" of the 14th half of the judgment of the first instance and the 11th half of the 6th 11st shall be raised respectively as "value-added Tax".

After the second 16th of the judgment of the first instance, the defendant added "the building of this case was used and used as a church."

The 2nd, 17, 19, 20, 3rd, and 13th, "astronomical" in the first instance judgment shall be deemed to be "Ocheon".

Around March 21, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that contains an expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2018.

The second half of the judgment of the court of first instance is "B Nos. 1 through 4" with "B No. 1 and 2."

The 5th 8th am to 11th am from the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

In addition, according to the video of No. 11-1 of the evidence No. 11-1, it is recognized that the leakage of water was generated in the building of this case even on December 17, 2017, and according to the statement of No. 14-2 of the evidence No. 14-2, it is recognized that the Defendant continued to perform electrical construction due to tent leakage from December 18, 2017.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2017.09.29 2015나13073

-수원지방법원 2020.02.06 2018나86931

-서울동부지방법원 2020.11.25 2018나30940

-서울동부지방법원 2020.12.16 2020나20328