(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.18 2016나69170

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.18 2016나69170

보증금반환

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the plaintiff "the defendant" in the fourth part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "the defendant"; (b) the plaintiff shall be deemed as "the defendant" in the fourth column of the building of this case; and (c) the first part of the seventh part "the defendant's above assertion is without merit" in the first part shall be deemed as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

[Supplementary judgment] The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff purchased the public notification facility of the building of this case, he bears the duty to restore the building of this case.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, evidence Nos. 1 and 5-1, evidence Nos. 5-4, and evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and 8, the Plaintiff had already been equipped with the notified source facilities at the time of leasing the building of this case. The Plaintiff leased and operated the building of this case from the Defendant, who is an existing operator, and the Plaintiff was separately transferred the notified source facilities, etc. from the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had discussions on the transfer of the notified source facilities from the end of 2012 to the Defendant or a third party, but there was no opinion, but there was a completion date of the contract of this case. The Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking an surrender of the building of this case as Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 2013Ga832, Oct. 11, 2013; the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to remove the building of this case to the Defendant at the time of the Plaintiff’s announcement and its ruling No. 2013.

The defendant sent content-certified mail containing "," and the plaintiff on December 4, 2013.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.11.27 2015나9686

-대구고등법원 2016.01.22 2015누6188

-대구고등법원 2016.01.22 2015누6171

-서울북부지방법원 2017.04.19 2016나36773

-서울서부지방법원 2019.12.12 2019나34620