logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.05.29 2017나3213
추심금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff shall be fully paid KRW 14,00,000 to the Defendant as well as the full payment from May 29, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The building indicated in the attached Form 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant building”) is a lease agreement between D (hereinafter “D”) and C (hereinafter “C”)

D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on March 2, 2012

(2) On March 2012, 2012, E, the actual operator of D, agreed to purchase the instant building, etc. between F and F, the representative director of C, on June 18, 2013.

3) D On April 19, 2012, G Co., Ltd. (former trade name: H: hereinafter “G”) as its subsidiary company of C on April 19, 2012

B) As to the interior interior interior interior interior interior of the instant building, etc. and rooftop waterproof construction, a contract for construction works was concluded between April 20, 2012 and June 30, 2012 by setting the construction cost of KRW 100,000,00, and the construction period of KRW 70,000,000 from April 20, 2012. At this time, G was drafted a contract for construction works in the name of KRW 30,00,000 from June 27, 2012. After that, G completed the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration construction work around June 2012, around August 2012, 202 between D and C, each of which was completed with the fixed date of KRW 70,00,000,000 and the lease period of KRW 20,000 from June 27, 2012.

5 The defendant is from March 2012 to March 201.

4. From the beginning, the instant building was occupied, and around April 18, 2012, the instant building completed the registration of change of address of its principal office as the instant building.

B. The name of the building between the defendant and C also brought a lawsuit against the defendant to seek the name of the building of this case against the defendant, and the defendant filed a counterclaim against the defendant to claim the return of the lease deposit.

[The Daejeon District Court 2013Kadan30810 (main office), 2014Kadan4337 (Counterclaim), and hereinafter “instant building name lawsuit”). Daejeon District Court 7 November 27, 2014 ”C from the Defendant 70,000.

arrow