(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.13 2015나44587

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.13 2015나44587

임대차보증금반환

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The fact that the first instance court rendered a judgment citing the Plaintiff’s claim after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, a notice of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and subsequently proceeding pleadings, is affirmed; the original copy of the judgment of the first instance also served on the Defendant by public notice; the Defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication of the records of proceedings on July 22, 2015; and the fact that the Defendant filed an application for perusal and duplication of the records of proceedings on July 28, 2015 is apparent.

According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant, and the court of first instance filed a subsequent appeal within 2 weeks from July 22, 2015, which became aware of the fact that the judgment of the court of first instance was served by public notice. Thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. (1) On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, whereby the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 7,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 550,000, monthly rent of KRW 550,000, and from April 30, 2013 to April 30, 2015, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 7,00,000,00.

(2) On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff removed from the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) indicated the Defendant’s oral intent to terminate the instant lease agreement to move to another place on October 2014, and the Defendant also consented thereto. As such, the instant lease agreement was terminated around October 20, 2014, which was introduced by the Plaintiff in physical coloring the new lessee D, or around November 12, 2014, which was withdrawn by the Plaintiff from the instant real estate.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 7,000,000 and its amount.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.12 2018나53100

-서울서부지방법원 2018.01.23 2016나4413

-제주지방법원 2018.05.17 2017나1646

-서울고등법원 2016.12.22 2015나30178

-대구지방법원 2017.09.14 2015나12510