(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.11.30 2018나108870

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) 대전지방법원 2018.11.30 2018나108870

건물명도(인도)

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 defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is re-examined, the fact-finding and judgment of the court

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows: (a) the evidence additionally submitted at the trial, which is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion; (b) the written evidence No. 3 and No. 4 (including additional numbers) are rejected; and (c) the judgment as described in the following No. 2 is added to the written reasoning of the first instance judgment; and (d) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. On February 16, 2017, the Defendant asserts that “The instant lease agreement will be terminated if the Defendant promised to pay the overdue rent, etc., and the promise is not fulfilled.” As the Defendant paid the overdue rent, etc. according to the promise around February 2, 2017 and March 2017, the said conditional contract termination declaration lost its validity.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4-2, it is recognized that "the plaintiff is unable to maintain the contract" in paragraph (2) of the content certification as of February 16, 2017, and paragraph (3) of the same Article stated that "the plaintiff shall deposit KRW 10,000,000 among February 15 and March 15, but the promise shall also be withdrawn from the State until the luxity lawsuit is filed."

Considering the contents of the above language and text, its objective meaning, and the developments and before and after the delivery of the above content certification, the Plaintiff appears to have clearly expressed its intent not to maintain the instant lease agreement to the Defendant through the said content certification. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2021.03.31 2020가단562192

-전주지방법원 2019.08.13 2018나9978

-춘천지방법원 속초지원 2021.04.13 2020가단1044

-서울동부지방법원 2019.12.24 2019가단7144

-인천지방법원 2019.07.16 2019가단6231