(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.10.16 2019나69691

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) 인천지방법원 2020.10.16 2019나69691

건물명도 등 청구

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2017, C and C recognized the Plaintiff’s claim in the first instance trial as co-defendant, and in the first instance trial (as to the Plaintiff’s delivery of each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and jointly with the Defendant, payment of the amount stated in the claim No. 1-B and (c) to the Plaintiff).

B. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), a lease contract of KRW 10,000,000 for a lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 700,000 for a monthly rent (However, prior payment of KRW 4,20,000 for a six-month rent) and a lease contract from April 20, 2017 to April 20, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) was concluded, and the Defendant participated as the agent of C at the time of preparation of the said lease contract.

The defendant asserts that he is the lessee of the instant lease agreement.

However, it is reasonable to see that the party to the instant lease contract (Lessee) is C, and there is no other ground to see that the party to the instant lease contract is a lessee.

B. On April 20, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 10,000,000 as lease deposit and KRW 4,200,000 as rent for six months, and delivered each of the instant real estate to C on the same day, and the Defendant occupied and used it.

C. C did not pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the monthly rent.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap's evidence 1 to 6 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the defense of this safety

A. Before the original judgment of the first instance court was issued on October 2, 2019, the Defendant had already known that the judgment of the first instance court was served by public notice.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal for the subsequent completion is unlawful because of the lapse of the period.

B. If a copy, original copy, etc. of the judgment was served by means of service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be without negligence.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.08.17 2016나10160

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.19 2015가단5228044

-의정부지방법원 2016.12.01 2016나6133

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.04 2017나11468

-서울남부지방법원 2015.12.10 2015나54306