(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.12.23 2015나335 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.12.23 2015나335

전세보증금반환

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.

Reasons

1. The lawsuit of the first instance court on the legitimacy of the instant appeal was proceeded with by public notice from the service of a complaint to the service of a judgment on the Defendant. However, even though the Defendant knew on July 20, 2013 that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice through the three-day Information Service staff, a claim collection entrusted by the Plaintiff on debt collection, the Plaintiff filed the instant appeal on January 12, 2015 after the lapse of two weeks from that time to that time. As such, the instant appeal of the instant case was unlawful by lapse of the filing period. However, although the Defendant knew of the fact that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice on July 20, 2013 through the three-day Information Service staff, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 2, 3, 6, 10 to 12, 14, 15, and the testimony of the witness C at the trial and the purport of the whole pleadings:

(1) On December 6, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant for the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000 for the lease deposit, KRW 450,00 for the rent (payment date: five days), KRW 30,00 for the management fee, and KRW 30,00 for the lease period from December 6, 2008 to December 6, 2010 for the lease period (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and paid KRW 5,00,000 for the Defendant.

(2) On February 16, 2009, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to terminate the instant contract, and received the answer from the Defendant to return the lease deposit upon leaving the instant real estate, and then retired from the instant real estate on February 18, 2009.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is between the parties.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.12.23 2016나2403

-부산지방법원 2016.09.23 2015나12298

-울산지방법원 2015.07.01 2014나4699

-서울남부지방법원 2020.05.21 2019나63247

-서울남부지방법원 2020.10.15 2019나2457