beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is to dismiss “no agreement” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, with the exception of the following supplementary judgment as to the part that the plaintiff contests as the grounds for appeal, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is to be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Supplementary judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal is that a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) concluded between D and B/L Nos. 103 and 401 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on August 16, 2016 between D and B/L at port is based on a false declaration of agreement, and the Defendant is merely the most lessee. Even if the Defendant is the genuine lessee of the instant apartment, it does not constitute a small-sum lessee protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act.
B. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 3, 3, 5, and 19-1, 2, 2, 21, 24, and 25-1, 2, 21, 25-2, and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone does not constitute the largest lessee of the instant apartment, or the Defendant does not constitute a small lessee entitled to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.
① From June 2016 to August 2016, the Defendant continued to send text messages (Evidence No. 3) to D, the Defendant urged D to return KRW 11,00,000,000,000, excluding the amount of KRW 17,000,000, which may be distributed as a small lessee at the instant auction procedure. In light of such attitude, the Defendant appears to be a lessee who actually concluded the instant lease agreement with D and paid KRW 28,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.
The plaintiff.