logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.09.04 2018나320137
임대차보증금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.

2...

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the plaintiff added or added the claims to be added to the plaintiff in this case as follows. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance which is added or added to the plaintiff is asserted as follows. (B) "A contract was concluded with the defendant around March 3, 2007 with a re-contract with a 150,000 won for a monthly rent and 24 months for a period of 24 months (hereinafter the lease contract of this case)" and "a lease contract was concluded with the defendant around March 3, 2007, with a 150,000 won for a monthly rent and 24 months for a period of 1.5 million won for a further period of 1.5 million won for a lease contract to the defendant's agent and 1.5 million won for lease."

The term “40 million won” in the text of the first instance judgment “1. E.,” and the term “instant lease agreement” in the text of the first instance judgment is “5 million won,” respectively, and the term “the instant lease agreement” in the 3th sentence of the first instance judgment, 5 and 6th sentence, i.e., “recontract.,” respectively.

In the second sentence following the second sentence of the first instance judgment, “The Plaintiff concluded the instant lease agreement with the Defendant’s agent E on March 2010 and additionally paid KRW 15 million, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff stated the first sentence of No. 8, corresponding thereto, as it is. The Plaintiff asserted in the first sentence of No. 10 on February 20, 2018 that “A, on or around January 20, 2010, claimed that it was erroneous on or around March 20, 201, because memory was not clear, and as a result, the Plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 2,60,000 on January 4, 2010, KRW 1,700,000 on January 12, 2010, KRW 3,000,000 on January 20, 200, KRW 300,700 on E. 700.

arrow