(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.10.08 2015나1568 | 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) 청주지방법원 2015.10.08 2015나1568

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 23, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the name of E on the second floor (hereinafter “the leased object”) among the buildings on D ground (hereinafter “the instant building”) owned by Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si (hereinafter “instant building”), and used the leased object for the purpose of the office.

B. On October 21, 2013, the Defendant purchased the instant building from C, and had F take charge of the removal of the instant building from January 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4-1 and Eul evidence 4-2, testimony of party witness F and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. As to the assertion that the non-committee agreement is contrary to the non-committee agreement, the plaintiff prepared and delivered to C each letter (Evidence 2) containing the purport of the non-committee agreement on the leased object of this case, and the above non-committee agreement also becomes effective to the defendant, who is the purchaser of the leased object of this case. Thus, according to the judgment of the non-committee agreement and the statement in the evidence No. 2, the plaintiff will clarify the leased object of this case until May 31, 2013, according to the statement in the evidence No. 2 of the non-committee agreement, and if the plaintiff fails to perform it, he/she will accept any measure against the building owner" (Evidence 2), and it is acknowledged that the non-committee agreement was made and delivered to C, but the contents of each of the above non-committee agreement can be deemed as the non-committee agreement as alleged by the plaintiff.

Even if the non-committee agreement remains effective, it shall not extend to a person who is not a party to the agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da63988, Mar. 26, 1999). As seen earlier, each of the above agreements was made between the plaintiff and C, and it is difficult to deem that it has been effective to the defendant who is not a party

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion that it goes against the good faith principle, Defendant 1.

참조판례

-대법원 1999. 3. 26. 선고 98다63988 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.10.17 2018가합210717

-대전지방법원 2017.06.23 2017나1224

-부산지방법원 2017.09.14 2016가단343530

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.26 2018가단5082782

-창원지방법원 2018.05.09 2017가단8602