(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.01 2017가단5205946

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 2018.02.01 2017가단5205946

손해배상(기)

Text

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

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is attached to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Reasons

1.The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

The plaintiff is the owner of the second floor of the brick slive slive roof in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "instant house") and is residing in the first floor of the said house.

B. On September 24, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for the deposit of KRW 170 million and the term of lease from October 11, 2016 to October 10, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and paid the said deposit (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and thereafter reside in this area from October 15, 2016 to the date of closing the argument of the instant case.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant resided in the second floor of the instant housing, and shut down without the door door door door, and caused a large number of cracks on the floor of the second floor of the instant housing. The Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom. The Defendant is also liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages. The Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages incurred therefrom.

B. The Defendant did not live in the second floor of the instant housing, and the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to repair the instant housing due to the impossibility of normal living due to mycoa and conversation. Therefore, the Plaintiff rejected this.

Accordingly, on January 2017, the original Defendant agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement, and around May 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to pay 1/2 of the deposit and the cost of installing the market. Since then, the multilateral Plaintiff demanded compensation for damages by asserting that the crack in the instant house was arising from the Defendant’s shutdown of the door, and reported to the police without any special reason, such as the smelling of chemical medicine, and searched the second floor of the week where the Defendant resides.

The instant lease agreement was concluded on January 2017.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.16 2018나54530

-의정부지방법원 2019.11.19 2019가단2384

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.05.08 2014가합4978

-제주지방법원 2017.11.29 2016나3041

-제주지방법원 2016.11.18 2015가단5810