(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.05.30 2017나1169 | 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) 춘천지방법원 2018.05.30 2017나1169

차임 등

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the payment of overdue rent and the payment of damages equivalent to the water rate. The court of first instance rejected the plaintiff's claim for the payment of overdue rent and the claim for the payment of damages equivalent to the water rate.

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed against the claim for damages equivalent to the water rate, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for damages equivalent to the above water rate.

2. Basic facts

A. The building C in Chuncheon City owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the building of this case”) consists of four independent rooms, and each room has an independent electric measuring instrument, and electricity charges are imposed on each room separately, but the water rates are imposed on the quantity of the entire building of this case.

B. On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff leased one room (hereinafter “instant room”) among the instant building to the Defendant at KRW 1,000,000 during the lease period from November 19, 2013 to November 18, 2015, and the Defendant removed from the instant room on November 15, 2015.

C. The water rate for April 2015 imposed on the instant building is KRW 1,762,440 (hereinafter “instant water rate”). The Plaintiff paid it. During the period subject to the assessment of the water rate for the instant building, there was no lessee other than the Defendant on the instant building.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

3. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant intentionally laid the tap water and caused the Plaintiff to pay excessive water rate to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff should pay damages equivalent to the water rate of this case, and that the Defendant should pay excessive water rate to the Plaintiff. In this regard, the Defendant asserts that the other water sources were destroyed by a dysular wave, and that the excessive water rate is only caused by water leakage.

Domins, Domins, .

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016나4687

-서울남부지방법원 2019.06.20 2018나64519

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.02.06 2017가단5613

-의정부지방법원 2019.06.13 2019나310

-수원지방법원 2018.05.24 2017노5124