(영문) 부산고등법원 2020.01.08 2019나55425

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 2020.01.08 2019나55425

임대차보증금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. We affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance, even after closely examining the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial and the reason for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of judgment like Paragraph 2

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) On July 31, 2018, the date of expiry of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff: (a) delivered the instant building itself to the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff performed or performed the duty to return the instant building; (b) on the part of the instant building, the period of expiration of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff moved out from the instant building and completed the funeral hall business; and (c) notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff performed the duty to return the leased object, and (d) the Plaintiff was merely a minimum measure to recover the deposit; and (e) at the same time, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the obligation to return the leased object, and accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is liable for delay of the obligation to return the leased object from the date following the date of the Plaintiff’s performance or the date of the delivery of the said obligation to return the instant building, and that the Plaintiff provided corrective devices to some facilities, such as the office, restaurant, guest room, etc. while leaving the instant building, without dispute between the parties, even if the lessee was partially delivered the leased object, it cannot be deemed that the leased object was actually used.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff removed from the building of this case and completed the funeral hall business.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2020.01.08 2019나55425

-부산지방법원 2018.11.14 2017가합47874

-광주지방법원 2019.01.25 2018가단10079

-서울동부지방법원 2015.05.04 2015가단101888

-대구지방법원김천지원 2020.04.01 2020가단69