logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.01.23 2018나47967
청구이의
Text

1. The part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the first instance, including a claim for a counterclaim that has been reduced in this court, is as follows.

Reasons

1. The scope of the judgment of the court in this case is that the plaintiff filed a non-performance of compulsory execution based on the decision of the court in this case with the claim of the principal lawsuit. The defendants filed a claim for counterclaim for removal of each shop in this case, delivery of the site, and a claim for unjust enrichment on the site. The court of first instance accepted both the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendants' counterclaim claim. The court of first instance only appealed against the plaintiff's counterclaim claim. The scope of the judgment of the court in this case is limited to the part of the defendants' counterclaim claim. 2. The court of first instance admitting the judgment of the court in this case is limited to the part of the defendant's counterclaim claim. The reasons for the court of first instance admitting the judgment of the court of first instance 7

Pursuant to paragraph 3.B, 7, 19 et al. shall be 19 et al.

Inasmuch as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, the part cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (excluding the part inconsistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance); 3.

A. At the seventh 10th 12th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th

A. “As the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant real estate without title, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendants unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 22,00,000 per month from April 1, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.”

(b) Full 7 pages 19 and below of the judgment of the first instance:

C. The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows. The plaintiff is established to carry on the wholesale and retail business of agricultural products, real estate leasing business, and sub-lease business of agricultural products, L, Gap 12 (personal identification certificates, N), Gap 13 (personal identification certificates, O's factual identification certificates), Gap 14 (personal identification certificates, 15 (personal identification certificates, P's factual confirmations), Gap 16 (personal identification certificates, Q's factual confirmations).

arrow