(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.09.25 2013가단33280

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) 서울서부지방법원 2014.09.25 2013가단33280

손해배상(자)

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2, 201, 201, the Plaintiff leased the entire first floor of the building on the ground of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, as follows. At the time of entering into a lease agreement, the Plaintiff confirmed that there was no particular error in the leased object at the time of entering into the lease agreement. The description of confirmation of the leased object, prepared by the broker, indicated the actual use status of the leased object as “real estate office,” and the water supply and drainage facilities as “ordinary” respectively.

The term of lease deposit KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 800,000 (the 30th day of each month, the later payment), the term of lease of KRW 10,000,000 (the 30th day of each month, the 30th day of the 30th day of the 30th day of the 30th day of the 12th day of the 2011 to December 12, 2013,

(3) When a contract is concluded, and the contract is terminated, the lessee shall restore it to its original state.

(b) If a new lessee has no objection to the use of the previous facilities, and requests restitution, all facilities except the wall shall be restored).

From December 15, 2011 to January 10, 2012, the Plaintiff operated the leased object as a real estate brokerage office, and removed the facilities installed by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor to use it for residential purposes. The Plaintiff performed installation of two rooms, one bank, one office, and the interior, external facilities, and interior, and interior, interior, and interior to install toilets on the leased object. During that process, the Plaintiff installed boilers, singkes, and the toilets connected to water supply and drainage pipes.

C. The Plaintiff had been residing in the said place after the said construction work. From May 2012, the number of times occurred, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor demanded several times, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor demanded reconstruction. On July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff confirmed that water leakage was generated in the part of the first floor toilet with the Defendant.

The same water leakage.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.06.30 2015가단108723

-울산지방법원 2017.05.31 2016가단54895

-수원지방법원안양지원 2017.07.12 2016가단8099

-서울서부지방법원 2021.04.30 2020나48243

-창원지방법원 2021.02.04 2019가단114969