beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters asserted by the plaintiff in the trial, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The plaintiff's assertion of new argument in the trial at the trial at the trial at the time that the plaintiff suffered more damage than the rent due to the provisional disposition in this case. ② At the time, the plaintiff did not lease due to the provisional seizure and the establishment registration of the mortgage since the plaintiff fully repaid the above debts under the agreement with the creditors of the provisional seizure and the right to collateral security with regard to the real estate in this case. ③ Since the defendant Sejong did not transfer the real estate in this case, it was not meaningful to cancel the provisional disposition registration in this case around June 22, 2010, and ④ due to the provisional disposition in this case, the plaintiff's credit and value of the real estate in this case has
Judgment
① It is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff’s damages due to the instant provisional disposition did not amount to the rent that the Defendant was able to receive from the Defendant’s mother on the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
② As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is insufficient to find the fact that the Plaintiff paid all of the provisional attachment and mortgage obligations set forth in the instant real estate at the time, solely on the basis of the descriptions of the health unit, the evidence No. 15-1 through 5, and the evidence No. 16-1 through 14, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, as long as the provisional attachment and mortgage obligations related to the instant real estate were not revoked, it cannot be said that there was no impact on the lease of the instant real estate, as long as the Plaintiff did not actually pay all the provisional attachment
The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.