beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant is paid KRW 265,00,000 from the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance, and each evidence submitted by the court of first instance is deemed legitimate even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.
Therefore, the reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: "Nos. 1 and 2 Eul" in Part 3 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be "Nos. 1 through 3"; "this court" in Part 12 of the same part shall be deemed to be "the court of first instance"; "the result of the interview" in the same part shall be deemed to be "the result of this court, the result of inquiry into fact-finding with respect to the future deposit securities corporation of this court"; "if January 18, 2016 arrives" in Part 4 above shall be deemed to be "the termination date of the lease contract"; "the expiration date" in Part 6 below shall be deemed to be "the expiration date"; "the defendant has a duty to claim for the cancellation of the opposing power between the plaintiff and the defendant; it shall also be necessary to claim it in advance; and it shall be deleted from the judgment of the court of first instance other than Article 410 of the Civil Procedure Act as follows."
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the right of lease of the defendant is subordinate to the right of collateral security, the defendant started to possess the above real estate after the right of collateral security was established on August 31, 2012, which was after the right of collateral security was established on August 31, 2012, and accordingly, he/she acquired the opposing power lower than the above right of collateral security.
It is not enough to recognize that the defendant acquired the opposing power lower than the right to collateral security on August 31, 2012 only with the statement of evidence No. 4, and rather, it is rather insufficient to recognize that the defendant acquired the opposing power lower than the right to collateral security.