logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.09 2014나22620
임대보증금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court has used for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the corresponding parts as follows. As such, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third party decision of the first instance court concluded the "Concluding the contract for the lease of this case" (hereinafter referred to as "the contract for the lease of this case"), the second 20 "the above stores" as "the above stores", and the second 21 "the above stores" (hereinafter referred to as "the above stores")" as "the lease of this case."

(b) Parts IV through V of the decision of the court of first instance from 11 to 15 are as follows.

【A. The Plaintiff claiming restitution on the ground of the cancellation, termination, invalidation, and revocation of the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated by the Plaintiff’s intent of rescission or termination on the ground of nonperformance (violation of the lease agreement) of the Defendants or significant changes in circumstances, or that the Defendant was null and void, cancellation, or termination on the ground that it does not own ownership of the object, and thus, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff is obligated to return the lease deposit received under the said contract to the Plaintiff as the restitution of the original state; hereinafter the above arguments are specifically examined. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of nonperformance (Violation of the lease agreement) is based on the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion as follows.

① The Defendants leased a store in a size that is so small that they could not operate the business, and did not perform interior construction, such as partitions, agreed under the instant lease agreement, and the televise is among each of the instant stores.

arrow