(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.10.16 2015나1985

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) 서울북부지방법원 2015.10.16 2015나1985

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Around May 200, C, the Plaintiff’s wife, leased the leased house D (hereinafter “instant house”) from the Defendant in the Goyang-dong-gu, Busan-si (hereinafter “instant house”) in the amount of KRW 42 million and resided in the instant house along with the Plaintiff.

B. On July 16, 2014, the Defendant returned 40 million won after deducting two million won, such as electricity charges, from the lease deposit, from the lease deposit, to C, and received the instant house from C on July 17, 2014.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff asserted that, around 2001, the Plaintiff continued to demand repair from the Defendant since 2008 while residing in the instant house.

However, even though the Plaintiff was temporarily repaired due to the Defendant’s failure to repair, the number of clothes owned by the Plaintiff was continued on March 1, 2013 and around April 2014, and the clothes, booms, books, etc. owned by the Plaintiff were milched.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost of KRW 3 million (2 million for the floor construction cost of the bank + KRW 500,000 + the repair cost of the boiler such as boiler + the replacement cost of KRW 500,000 + the replacement cost of the fung and KRW 500,000) and the damages incurred due to the damage of fungs, fungs, books, etc., total of KRW 5 million and the damages incurred therefrom.

3. In determining a lease agreement, a lessor is obligated to maintain the conditions necessary for the use and profit-making of the leased object while the lease is in existence (hereinafter referred to as “duty to repair”).

(See Article 623 of the Civil Act). However, according to the above facts, the plaintiff is not a party to a lease agreement on the housing of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant bears the repair obligation on the housing of this case on the basis of the above lease agreement, and it is not possible to view that the defendant bears the repair obligation on the housing of this case on the basis of the above lease agreement, and the statement and image of

참조조문

-민법 제623조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.05.10 2018나3189

-의정부지방법원 2019.10.17 2019나1122

-의정부지방법원 2019.10.17.선고 2019나1122 판결

-대전지방법원 2016.10.26 2015가단222651

-서울남부지방법원 2016.07.29 2015가단49297