(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나1422

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) 서울서부지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나1422

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall receive 60,220,000 won from the plaintiff at the same time.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment on the cause of claim is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The defendant's argument is that since the defendant's above lease agreement Article 10 (1) 7 and 10 (1) of the above lease agreement "if he/she owns another house due to inheritance, judgment or marriage or any other inevitable reason and disposes of the house within 6 months from the date he/she was notified as disqualified as a result of computer search result, he/she does not constitute grounds for termination of lease agreement in the case of the defendant, and the defendant did not know about the husband's acquisition of house D, and it does not constitute cases where the member acquired the house due to marriage with D

However, Article 10 (1) 7 of the instant lease agreement "if a lessee or a person who will be the spouse of a household owns another house due to marriage or any other inevitable reason" refers to a case where a lessee or a person who will be the spouse of a household owns a house before marriage in the same household as a result of marriage, which constitutes "where a lessee or a member of a household comes to own another house". It is not a case where a spouse is married with a D who already owned a house before marriage and thereby becomes to own another house, but it is not a case where a husband D acquires another house after marriage, and it does not fall under the case of the said proviso, and it does not fall under the case where a spouse D acquires another house after marriage, and there is no possibility that the spouse would have dealt with the same household as the householder before or after the expiration of the lease term, and therefore, it remains

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2020.1.16.선고 2019나1422 판결

-서울고등법원 2019.10.30 2019나2017216

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.01 2017가단31948

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.23 2016가단5276897

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.04 2015나73264