logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.23 2018나2058708
임대차보증금
Text

1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the decision of this court on the argument that the defendant emphasizes or added in the trial is added to the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding the part on co-defendant I and J of the first instance that became separated and determined.). Thus, it is cited including the summary pursuant

Part 4, the "Defendants" in Part 2 was used as "Defendants, Co-Defendant I and J (hereinafter referred to as "I and J")", and all "Defendants" were used as "Defendants, I and J".

Part 4, "Defendant H" and "Defendant H" in Part 12 shall be added to "Defendant" and "Defendant H".

Part 4 "Defendant I" in Part 15 is "Codefendant I of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as "I"), and not more than "Defendant I" is written in all "I".

Part 4, "Defendant J" in Part 17 shall be deemed to be "J of Co-Defendant J of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as "J")", and all of "Defendant J" shall be deemed to be "J".

CHAPTER 12, 12, 2,000,00,000

B. 2) As examined in paragraph 2, “A lessee may not be deemed to have provided a performance of delivery of the leased object if he/she did not inform the lessor of the fact while leaving the leased object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da77697, Feb. 26, 2002).”

In each of the contracts of this case concerning the building of this case concluded by the defendant, I, and J under the co-ownership of shares of 1/3 of the defendant's assertion for further determination, the lessor, a contracting party, is not a "AC" as a partnership under the Civil Act, but a lessor, the defendant, I, and J did not have any investment as a partnership or any distribution of profits and losses.

There is only room for co-owners to be the defendant, I, and J.

However, the defendant is in the co-owner status of the building of this case, and only J is the building of this case.

arrow