(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.18 2018나44526

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.18 2018나44526

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this case are written in part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows, and the defendant's assertion that the court emphasizes or adds the following "2. Additional Judgment" is the same as the part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 2, 11 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be applied to "E".

The first instance court’s second page 18 of the judgment was served “(the service was completed).” The court determined that “The instant lease contract was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination, and rendered the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on December 14, 2017, and E appealed with the same court No. 2018Na3525, but the lawsuit was terminated on July 28, 2018.”

2. The Defendant asserts that, around April 1994, the former owner leased the instant store to install all facilities at his own expense, and thereafter, the J succeeded to I as a result of the death of I, but still did not return the facility, the Defendant has the right to possess the instant store.

In light of the following facts: (a) the images of the evidence No. 3-1 to No. 8 are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant spent the necessary or beneficial expenses to the store of this case; and (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant spent the installation of the installation for the store of this case; (c) even if the lessee of the building, upon the termination of the lease relationship, agreed to restore the building to its original state and order the lessor to surrender the building upon the termination of the lease relationship, can be deemed as a special agreement that provided the lessor to waive his/her right to demand reimbursement of all beneficial or necessary expenses incurred in the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da20389, Sept. 30, 194); (d) the evidence No. 2, 5, and 6

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 1994. 9. 30. 선고 94다20389, 20396 판결

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2016.04.20 2015나3849

-창원지방법원 2018.05.10 2017나56138

-수원고등법원 2020.10.07 2020나14044

-인천지방법원 2017.11.23 2017나51504

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.18 2018나28777