(영문) 부산고등법원 2017.07.19 2016나57383

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) 부산고등법원 2017.07.19 2016나57383

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the defendant ordered the plaintiffs to pay the following money in excess of the amount of money:

Reasons

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the plaintiffs’ assertion on the basic facts and the grounds for the claim are as stated in the part corresponding to the judgment of the first instance, except for the use of “this Court” in the 3th sentence of the judgment of the first instance as “Supplementary District Court”, and the 20th sentence as “after that time” in the 20th sentence as “ July 1, 2015,” respectively, and therefore, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is cited pursuant

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 6, "Witness D's testimony, this Court" in the 12th sentence shall be "Witness D's testimony, and the court of first instance".

Part 8. The following shall be added to the 5th page:

(C) Meanwhile, while entering into the instant transfer agreement with D, the Defendant agreed that this agreement shall be null and void in the event that the Plaintiff becomes aware of the succession of the contract due to the lessor’s grounds (Article 4 of the instant transfer agreement). The Plaintiffs, who acquired the ownership of the instant building, shall be the same-sex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “same-sex”).

The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the premium was not caused by a lease agreement with the defendant, as it was impossible to succeed to the status of the tenant, and that the acquisition of the premium in this case becomes null and void all of the contract in this case pursuant to the above provision.

However, the fact that the Plaintiffs entered into the instant transfer agreement with D on March 1, 2013 and thereafter, concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on March 15, 2013 and operated the mobile phone sales store and the four-day shop as seen earlier.

Thus, the plaintiffs were legally succeeded to the status of the lessee with the consent of the defendant who was the lessor at that time.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.05.27 2015나2047240

-부산지방법원 2017.06.28 2016가합50095

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.13 2018가단5262656

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.25 2018나46980

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.01.19 2015가단16112