logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.11.19 2019나107829
청구이의
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments to the argument that the defendant emphasized or added in the trial of the court of first instance:

(Application Law: the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act); 2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant paid rent up to March 2010 during the term of the lease agreement. On November 30, 201, the Defendant asserted to the effect that there was no overdue rent set off against the lease deposit on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff did not complete the lease agreement by delivering the boarding house to the Plaintiff on November 30, 2011, but did not pay rent on April 201; and (b) the Plaintiff transferred the boarding house to the Plaintiff.

However, the Defendant and the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the lease agreement around April 2010 only with the evidence of No. B 1.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff had taken over the business of a female house from the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(B) The Defendant’s lease deposit exceeds the Defendant’s lease deposit on October 8, 2015, since the Plaintiff paid monthly rent from April 2010 to November 30, 2011, even if the Plaintiff paid the monthly rent from March 2010 (i.e., KRW 16 million (= KRW 800,000 x 20 months). Thus, the Defendant’s lease deposit exceeds the Defendant’s lease deposit.

The defendant's assertion in this part is not accepted.

B. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's transfer of the boarding house to the defendant is not a normal commercial activity but a normal commercial activity, and thus, he should not apply extinctive prescription under the Commercial Act since he acquired unjust benefits and committed a tort for tax evasion.

However, since the defendant's claim for the return of the lease deposit occurred from the lease contract for the boarding business, it should be viewed as commercial claims arising from commercial activities.

Furthermore, the execution claim as stated in the instant performance recommendation decision.

arrow