logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.25 2017나66024
임대차계약금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the defendant C's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant among the costs of appeal.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance only sought revocation of the part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance, but did not state specific grounds for appeal. The grounds for appeal by the defendant C are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment by the court of

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows: (a) except for the correction of “net act roll” in Section 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “the network act” in Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) as such, it is cited by the main text of Article

2. If so, Defendant C is liable to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from December 21, 2016 to August 24, 2017, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the application for the instant payment order, as requested by the Plaintiff, after the date of payment of down payment, since the date of the application for the instant payment order, and the date of delivery of a copy of the application for the instant payment order, as requested by the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment, until the date of the decision of the first instance, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is justified, and thus, the remaining claims against the Defendant C and the claims against the Defendant B are justifiable. Accordingly, the judgment of the first instance is dismissed as it is without merit, and all of the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the appeal against the Defendants.

arrow