(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나20995

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나20995

사용료

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

Reasons

In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant’s contract deposit under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Plaintiff’s contract deposit, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment of the lower court, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Chapter 7 (j) Section 20 (5) of the instant lease agreement provides that the grounds for termination where the obligation under the instant lease agreement is not fulfilled at the due date. As the monthly rent, etc. under the instant lease agreement was overdue, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on November 4, 2015.

Meanwhile, Article 21(3) of the Lease Agreement provides that where a cause for termination of the lease arises, the statutory loss amount may be claimed. The detailed statement of the Lease Agreement provides that the statutory loss amount shall be 136,628,31 won (=17,566,611 won) if the lease contract of this case is terminated, 7.8% of the amount of the agreed interest rate, 7.8% of the amount of the agreed interest rate, 117,566,611 won, and 7.8% of the total amount paid by the Plaintiff to the goods price and commission, etc. shall be 19,061,720 won from the date of each payment to November 3, 2015, the amount of interest calculated at the interest rate of 19,061,720 won shall be 136,628,31 won (=17,566, 611 won, 19, 061,720 won).

On December 1, 2015, a copy of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to seek payment of an amount exceeding the amount equivalent to the amount of statutory loss against the Defendant, was served on December 1,

(b) 9 pages;

D. The Defendant’s theory of the lawsuit is as follows: (a) KRW 125,275,120 of the stipulated loss amount under the instant lease agreement and its claim is filed by the Plaintiff after the date of termination of the instant lease agreement.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.15 2014가단206721

-서울고등법원 2016.01.21 2015나2037373

-서울북부지방법원 2015.06.25 2014가합1656

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.18 2014가합519578

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.18 2018가단5237124