beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows, except for cases where the part pertaining to “1. Basic Facts” through “3. Judgment” among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance is used or re-written as follows, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
[D] part of the judgment of the court of first instance: ① The portion No. 4th (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance ① The Plaintiff shall be the sum of the amount of damages equivalent to the monthly rent from June 14, 2016 to November 29, 2016, and the amount of rent 36,520,000, which the Plaintiff left the building of this case and accrued while making use of or making use of or making profits from the building of this case, and from November 30, 2016 to May 1, 2017, the designation of the Plaintiff’s tobacco retailer from November 30, 2016 to May 1, 2017, the amount of unjust enrichment from the use of or making profits from the building of this case and from May 2, 2017 to December 52, 927, 86,946,676, or the amount of indemnity from August 16, 2017 to December 17.
[Supplementary part] The portion of the first instance judgment’s “3,852,400 won” as “3,851,167 won” and “4,868,000 won” as “3,335,480 won” and “3,89 million won” as “29,913,473 won” respectively.
A. [Attention parts] The sixth (C.) decision of the first instance court.
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 17, 24, and 25 of Section B, each of the following items is confirmed as KRW 3,582,00 and the amount of the cost of the execution for the removal of real estate that the Plaintiff is liable to reimburse to the Defendant: (i) the determination of the cost of G enforcement as of February 1, 2018; (ii) the determination of the cost of the execution for G enforcement as of August 20, 2018; and (iii) the determination of the cost of the lawsuit as of August 20, 2018; and (iv) the Defendant received dividends of KRW 246,520 out of the cost of the execution for the Plaintiff’s corporeal movables remaining in the building of this case on August 22, 2018 (this Court H). The execution of the Defendant’s real estate removal is unnecessary, and thus the execution cost of the execution cost is deemed unnecessary.