(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.12.15 2017나47854

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) 부산지방법원 2017.12.15 2017나47854

권리금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the Plaintiff’s additional determination as to the part that the Plaintiff asserts, emphasized in the trial, or in addition, as stated in the following paragraph (2). As such, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserted 1) with the defendant as to the first floor among the buildings of the third floor neighborhood living facilities located in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, and D (hereinafter "the instant store"), the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant as to ① the lease deposit amount of KRW 60 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000,000, and the lease term of two years on January 11, 2007; ② the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000 on March 25, 2008; ③ the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000 on October 5, 201; ③ the lease deposit amount of KRW 110,000,000 and monthly rent of KRW 4.5 million on October 5, 201.

B) From December 23, 2006 to October 31, 2011, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a total of KRW 110 million,00,000,000,000,000, which was finally increased on eight occasions pursuant to each of the above lease agreements. (C) On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff terminated the lease agreement and delivered the instant store to the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff KRW 80,000,000,000 out of KRW 110,000,000,000 to KRW 30,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”).

Therefore, the defendant should pay the remaining lease deposit to the plaintiff KRW 30 million.

2) The money of this case by Defendant is not a lease deposit, but a prior lessee of the instant store (the prior lessee).

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.08 2015가단5226536

-서울남부지방법원 2015.01.23 2014가합6740

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.31 2014가합519615

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.10.11 2019가단15931

-수원지방법원 2019.11.21 2019나62628