logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.01.20 2015나3082
임대차보증금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: each of the judgment of the court of first instance cited or added each of the relevant items; and the Plaintiff’s additional assertion in the trial of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to determining the following “the additional determination in the trial of the court of second instance”, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 5, "The entry of evidence No. 13 in Category 13 of Part A" in Part 3 is "The entry of evidence No. 13, 14, Eul evidence No. 6, and witness G of the trial court".

Part 7 to 13 of the 5th 7th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.

② On September 4, 2013, when the Plaintiff received a reduction of KRW 3 million out of KRW 78 million under the instant lease transfer agreement, the Plaintiff issued and delivered a cash storage certificate to the Defendants that KRW 5 million should be paid when a new lease agreement with D is concluded with regard to KRW 5 million out of the said premium. In this case, the period for performance of the lease agreement with D was not separately determined, and the said five million was finally reduced from the premium. ③ The Plaintiff paid the rent of the instant parking lot from July 2014 to KRW 7, 2014 following the instant lease transfer agreement, the Plaintiff directly paid it to D without going through the Defendants, and discussed the remuneration for the defect of the parking lot facilities or the defect of the fire-fighting inspection expenses, etc., and the Defendants appeared to have been in a marital relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as to the instant premium, and the Defendants appeared to have been in fact at the time of the conclusion of the said lease agreement with GJ.

arrow