(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.18 2019나34946

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 2019.12.18 2019나34946

건물인도등 청구의 소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination

A. Determination as to the assertion on the existence of a valid sales contract 1) The Defendant, on January 12, 2017, the transfer of the instant sales contract, concluded with the Plaintiff on January 12, 2017 (hereinafter “the first sales contract”).

(2) Since the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the first sales contract on January 12, 2017, the first sales contract still remains valid even if the instant sales contract was rescinded, and the Defendant had the title to possess the instant building as the buyer. (2) According to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff and the first sales contract on the instant building was concluded on January 12, 2017.

However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant sales contract after about one year and five months from the date of entering into the first sales contract, and the first sales contract was rescinded.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

B. 1) The Defendant asserts that the instant contract was renewed due to the Plaintiff’s declaration of refusal to renew the instant lease agreement even if the contract was rescinded as the Defendant’s remaining unpaid payment, and that there was a right to possess the instant building. 2) We examine the following: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant contract on May 31, 2018, which is the expiration date of the instant lease term; (b) there was no dispute between the parties; (c) so, there was an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the termination of the instant lease agreement by concluding the instant contract to form a new legal relationship.

(2) The contract of this case was renewed.

Even if the defendant paid the difference after June 2018.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.03.09 2017가단121202

-서울고등법원 2017.01.20 2016나2049748

-대전지방법원 2020.12.02 2019가단106979

-서울남부지방법원 2018.09.28 2018가단229780

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.11.23 2017가합5194