(영문) 춘천지방법원 2019.12.11 2019나51342

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) 춘천지방법원 2019.12.11 2019나51342

임차보증금반환

Text

1. All appeals against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

Reasons

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and each evidence submitted to the court of first instance is presented to this court, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance can be recognized as legitimate even if each evidence

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the following addition, and thus, it is justified in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Following the fifth upper part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "It is reasonable to see that there exists "the condition of the store of this case at the time of the lease contract of this case", and the circumstance that the condition of the store of this case at the time of the lease contract of this case differs from that of the building ledger shall be proved by the lessee. However, the lessor is liable to assert and prove the claim for return of unjust enrichment secured by the lease deposit and the claim for damages arising from the lease deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da1464, 14671, Jul. 25, 1995). The defendant's above assertion is added.

At the fifth bottom of the first instance judgment, “The Defendant added the Plaintiff’s assertion that he damaged the existing landscape, but it is not sufficient to recognize the description of the evidence No. 17 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”

According to the 6th sentence of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff added “The Plaintiff may acknowledge the fact that he/she completed the closure of business on June 27, 2018, the date on which he/she delivered the instant store to the Defendant.”

3. The plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit is reasonable, and the defendant's claim on the principal lawsuit shall be accepted, and the defendant's counterclaim shall be dismissed.

The judgment of the court of first instance is concluded.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2020.01.15 2017나53306

-춘천지방법원 2019.06.12 2017나53528

-수원지방법원 2020.07.07 2019나70919

-춘천지방법원 2019.05.15 2018나52614