(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.27 2017나91037

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.27 2017나91037

손해배상(기)

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 for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: (a) the part of the first instance judgment from Nos. 4 to No. 6 of the first instance judgment (1. f., and g., the part of the first instance judgment) is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment (1. 1. basic facts), and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use]

F. On December 29, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted to the non-party company (compactn&C, a stock company) a letter of consent for management and operation of the G, which delegates the selection, change, conclusion of a sub-lease contract, termination of a sub-lease contract, and all acts related to the name of a store pursuant to the instant lease agreement, etc., and on February 2, 2011, the date of the sub-lease contract (No. 4 through 6 of the results of the inquiry of the fact to the representative director of the HH corporation, the court of the first instance), which was written between the Plaintiff and the corporation, on February 2, 201, was written in the last (6 pages of the results of the reply).

With respect to the store of this case, EA code lease, the 3,909,000 won of sublease deposit, 922,000 won of tea, 92,000 won of tea, and 1 year from February 7, 2011 of sublease contract was concluded.

G. Meanwhile, the construction of the instant commercial building was completed on June 4, 2010, and the instant commercial building was opened on October 15, 2010. On the sixth floor where the instant store was located, a large-scale mobile phone company was located and operated normally.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion (i.e., the lease deposit and the sale deposit for the store of this case were paid to the plaintiff, who is the lessor, but the defendant was obligated to allow the tenant to use and benefit from the store of this case, so the commercial building of this case was not opened until now, and the defendant did not transfer the possession of the store of this case to

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.07.17 2017가합112063

-서울고등법원 2019.09.06 2018나2039127

-광주지방법원 2017.05.26 2016나59774

-서울고등법원 2016.05.26 2016나2002190

-대구지방법원 2017.09.20 2016가단108882