(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.09.06 2015가단134475

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) 서울동부지방법원 2016.09.06 2015가단134475

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) with KRW 3,321,090.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts [In the absence of dispute, evidence Nos. 1 through 23, evidence No. 25 through 28, evidence No. 38 through 50, evidence No. 52, evidence No. 3 through 5, evidence No. 7, fact-finding results on the head of the management office of this court, fact-finding results on the head of the management office of this court, purport of the whole pleadings];

A. The relationship 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s No. 400 of the fourth apartment 400 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) On April 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E, the former owner of the instant real estate on May 27, 2014 on the ground of sale and purchase, with the following terms: (a) on June 25, 2008, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with E, the former owner of the instant real estate from E, to August 28, 2010; and (b) on the termination of the lease agreement, the lessee returned the instant real estate to the lessor by restoring it to the original state; and (c) on the other hand, the lessor entered into a lease agreement with E, stating that the amount of damages would be recovered from the deposit and the remaining amount would be returned to the lessor; and (d) on September 24, 2013, the lease agreement with E was renewed; and (e) on September 24, 2013, the Defendant entered into the lease agreement with E from September 29, 2013 to September 29, 2013.

3) When acquiring the ownership of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff succeeded to the entirety of the instant lease agreement. (B) On April 28, 2015, the Defendant, around December 2014, proposed that the Plaintiff would be a director in the instant real estate before the expiration of the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff responded to the purport that the instant lease agreement may be terminated by mutual consultation, regardless of the instant lease agreement term.

2. Afterwards, the defendant did not have the set of deposit money for the plaintiff on February 3, 2015.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.07.05 2015가단123147

-서울동부지방법원 2017.09.27 2016나26558

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.06.01 2017가합71270

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.08.22 2016가단36200

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.08.09 2019가단70977