(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.05.11 2017나5011 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2018.05.11 2017나5011

양수금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant agreed to restore part of the instant building at the time of termination of the lease agreement with the Nonparty Company. However, the Defendant destroyed part of the instant building or arbitrarily removed the interior facilities. After examining the cost of restoring each damaged part presented by the Nonparty Company in the course of investigating the crime of causing property damage, the Defendant prepared the instant written statement. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant claim, KRW 60,636,350 ( KRW 1,86,136,350, KRW 37,134,350, KRW 21,936,00) according to the instant written statement. (2) The Nonparty Company is obligated to pay the Defendant, and the Nonparty Company is liable to pay the Defendant the unpaid rent claim KRW 1,265,000,000, KRW 636,500, May 6, 2015 to December 16, 2016.

The Defendant paid to Nonparty Company KRW 3,519,151, and KRW 20,000,000 for the claim for the refund of lease deposit, and KRW 38,164,426 after May 1, 2015. The Nonparty Company received KRW 27,449,70 in the compulsory execution procedure for the said claim for rent from Nonparty Company.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the non-party company KRW 38,272,574 remaining after offsetting the above claims and obligations.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the non-party company did not present any basis for each repair cost in relation to the instant written statement, and the party who installed the same is merely a digital camera among the damaged goods listed in the instant written statement, and is not the non-party company.

In addition, the defendant completed restoration measures against the successful bidder of the building of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원서부지원 2019.11.08 2018가단111029

-대구지방법원 2020.04.24 2019가단142494

-대전지방법원 2018.02.21 2017나3459

-대전지방법원서산지원 2017.05.02 2016가단7724

-서울고등법원 2017.03.29 2016나2059004