beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment shall be modified as follows:
Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
In the first instance court of this case, the plaintiff filed a claim for the delivery of the store of this case against the defendant as the principal claim, return of the rent in arrears and the rent in excess of the principal claim, or claim for damages, and the defendant filed a judgment identical to the purport of the principal claim against the plaintiff as a counterclaim. The defendant filed a claim for the return of the lease deposit, the claim for return of the rent in advance, and the claim for damages against the plaintiff (which is divided into active and passive damages). The court of first instance dismissed all the claim for the delivery of the store of this case against the principal claim, and ruled that the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in arrears and the rent in advance or the claim for damages were completely dismissed, and that part of the claim for the return of the rent in advance and the rent in advance and the claim for damages were partly accepted.
Accordingly, only the defendant filed an appeal against the defendant among the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance. In the court of the first instance, only the defendant's claim for the return of the deposit against the plaintiff, the claim for return of the advance payment, and the claim for damages are within the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance.
Basic Facts
The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “On the other hand, the Defendant continued to possess the instant store after June 12, 2014, but does not operate the instant store any longer,” the Defendant suspended the restaurant business at the instant store after June 12, 2014, and delivered the said store to the Plaintiff on December 10, 2015,” except for the case where “On the other hand, the Defendant delivered the said store to the Plaintiff on January 30, 2014” as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Of the instant counterclaim, the judgment on the claim for the refund of the lease deposit and the amount of the advance payment is examined, and the instant lease contract is concluded.