(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.29 2015나17514

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) 수원지방법원 2016.01.29 2015나17514

점포명도등

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..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, in addition to the part concerning the determination of the "claim regarding the substantial party to the instant lease agreement" written between the 5th and 65th of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The Defendant asserts that the actual party to the instant lease agreement was the fact that the first lease agreement was entered into with the Plaintiff, but no one had entered into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff after the termination of the contract, and since the Defendant’s mother, E directly entered into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay the Plaintiff a reasonable amount of unjust enrichment and damages.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the party to the instant lease agreement is not the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and No. 1, the following circumstances, namely, ① even before entering into the instant lease agreement, Defendant and E leased No. 103 and operated the clothing store from the Plaintiff, and the lessee entered into the first lease agreement (Evidence No. 1) at the time, and the first lease agreement (Evidence No. 1) entered into between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. ② The instant lease agreement was concluded only once the first lease agreement was terminated and only some conditions were changed, and Defendant and E had operated the same clothing store as the previous ones; ③ at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, Defendant and E issued the business registration certificate under the name of the Plaintiff and paid rent through the account in the name of the Defendant. ④

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.07 2015나50599

-수원지방법원 2016.04.15 2014나46010

-광주고등법원 2015.03.27 2014나11726

-대전지방법원 2020.08.20 2019나117178

-수원지방법원 2014.10.30 2013가단104567