(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.04.13 2017나5306 | 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) 전주지방법원 2018.04.13 2017나5306

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except where the Defendant added to the pertinent part the following determination as to the matters alleged in the trial, thereby citing the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) After renting the instant real estate, the Defendant performed construction, such as installation of electric facilities, roof, and soil repair, and as a result, the value of the instant real estate increased, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the beneficial cost to the Defendant. Therefore, the amount equivalent to the above beneficial cost ought to be deducted from the rent, etc. that the Defendant is obligated to pay. 2) Since the obligation to allow a lessee to use and benefit from the subject matter in a lease agreement and the lessee’s obligation to pay rent has a simultaneous performance relationship, as long as the Plaintiff failed to perform its obligation to allow the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the instant

Even if the obligation to pay the rent has been delayed, it cannot be said that the obligation to pay the rent has been delayed.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s failure to pay rent.

B. 1) Determination 1) In addition to the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 242,00 at the cost of electric measuring instruments, there was no specific and objective evidence to prove that the Defendant spent the installation of electric facilities, the roof, and the expenses for irrigation and repair works on the instant real estate. In addition, in order to exercise the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs, it is necessary to prove all the actual cost and the present increase in the value of the instant real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da40381, Nov. 22, 2002). Since there is no evidence to prove that the present value of the instant real estate has increased due to the said construction, this part of the Defendant’s assertion

Furthermore, the entry of No. 1 and the whole pleadings are recorded.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.04.01 2013나14396

-대구지방법원 2020.08.11 2020나302828

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.20 2016나52479

-대법원 2018. 6. 15. 선고 2018다206707 판결

-대법원 2018.06.15 2018다206707