logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울고등법원 2018.01.12 2017나2007277
동산인도 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

(b) Matters;

5. Acquisition or transfer of gas-using facilities and ancillary facilities;

6. Matters concerning the acquisition or transfer of industrial waterworks and waterworks and sewerage systems;

7. Matters concerning the acquisition or transfer of fire-fighting systems;

8. Other matters concerning the acquisition or transfer of approval or permission on factory facilities (Provided, That the foregoing eight provisions are deemed to be written in writing on March 31, 2015, in light of the circumstances described above, Section 1, April 30, 2015).

It shall be effective only and shall be returned to A by the D representative when the term of lease expires.

(2) On March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sold the instant real estate at KRW 6.5 billion, but the down payment of KRW 2 billion was concluded on March 31, 2010 when entering into a contract; the intermediate payment of KRW 5 billion was paid on March 31, 2010; and the remainder of KRW 4 billion was paid on March 31, 2015 and delivered documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership at the time of receipt of any balance.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a special agreement with the following terms:

Special agreement note * A lease agreement is concluded in parallel with a sales contract * 4.45 billion won in land 6.5 billion won in total 1.5 billion won in total 1.5 billion won in total * 490 million in total with a sales contract * The lease agreement period is the remainder until the date of this sales contract.

(c) Separate or smaller omission (the same as the content of the instant special agreement attached to the instant lease agreement);

C. 1) The Defendant, based on the instant lease agreement and the execution of the sales contract, began to operate a chroding factory with the trade name “I” in the instant real estate from April 1, 2010 after receiving the delivery of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, before entering into the lease and the sales contract of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6.9 million to the E business cooperative (hereinafter “E association”) to operate the said “D” in order to operate the instant real estate before entering into the lease and the sales contract of the instant real estate. In order to secure the permissible discharge of wastewater necessary for the operation of the said chroding factory (hereinafter “quota”).