(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.12.13 2018나58606

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.12.13 2018나58606

임대차보증금

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall set forth the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Building G from the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance ("the provisional contract of this case") is "the lease contract of this case" ("the certificate No. 1 of this case" hereinafter), (b) No. 3 and No. 4 as "the lease contract of this case", and (c) No. 3 and No. 4 as "the lease contract of this case", and (d) No. 3, No. 4 and 5 as "the lease contract of this case (the certificate No. 3 of this case; hereinafter "the lease contract of this case") again prepared the lease contract of this case ("the lease contract of this case")"; (d) No. 410 of the lease contract of this case as "the additional lease contract of this case", and (e) No. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the additional lease contract of this case", and (e) the part of the judgment of this case No. 2 of this case No. 16.

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the party's assertion are as follows: "I believe that there has been power of representation" under Section 4 of Section 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and, except for the case where "I asserts that there is a set-off with the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above rent," under Section 4 of Section 6, "I claim that the above rent is set-off with the claim for return of unjust enrichment," it is identical to the reasons in Section 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. The sole evidence of the Plaintiff’s submission of the determination as to whether the instant building constitutes a acting representative is insufficient to recognize that H was delegated by the Defendant with respect to the conclusion of the lease agreement on the instant building G around September 2009 and November 201, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the above relevant criminal judgment, HA.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2015.10.14 2015가단105568

-광주지방법원 2019.02.20 2018나4426

-서울고등법원 2018.10.12 2017나2058275

-서울고등법원 2020.07.02 2019누60266

-서울고등법원 2017.12.01 2017누58290