Masung Young Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

G. G.S. P.T. (Law Firm Losss, Attorneys Choi Sung-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

October 23, 2015

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gahap53677 decided April 29, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant delivered the part of the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

○ Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance court

Furthermore, the Defendant asserted that this contract was null and void in violation of the principle of credit in Article 24 of the Regulations on the Establishment and Management of the GIC, since the Defendant violated the obligation under the above repurchase agreement with the Defendant and the Plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant concluded a repurchase agreement with the Defendant that the instant building may be redeemed at any time prior to the expiration of the lease term by paying the construction price and by paying the construction price at any time before the expiration of the lease term, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Parts:

○ Part 8 of the first instance court judgment No. 1 to 5 of the first instance court judgment

(A) If the Defendant’s number of days using the instant building falls short of 111 days due to extenuating circumstances, such as the closure of the GIC, etc., the fact that even if the GIC has long run due to the unilateral closure of North Korea, the GIC is merely a six-month period from April 2013 to September 2013, the fact that the GIC has long run from September 30, 2013 is obvious to this court. As of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, more than six months have passed from December 30, 2014, which is the expiration date of the term of the instant lease as of December 30, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant has already used the instant building part for the said period of more than 111 days, and the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kang Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)