본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.28 2015가단147447

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Seoul Central District Court is not allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on a judgment of 2015Na7670 Decided June 24, 2015.


1. Basic facts

A. From November 201 to May 2012, the Plaintiff leased all and part of the first floor and second floor of the building owned by Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, to the Defendant. The Defendant has run a restaurant and beauty room from the first floor of the building in question to the second floor.

B. On the ground of the termination of the above lease agreement, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking reimbursement of outstanding public charges and expenses for restoration to the original state, and restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent. While the lawsuit is pending, the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff seeking reimbursement of the lease deposit and necessary expenses, business losses, and compensation for mental damage caused by the Plaintiff’s assault and damage of property, etc., as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da5561, supra.

C. On December 11, 2014, the court of the first instance accepted part of the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and ordered the Defendant to pay KRW 25,097,901 to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the public charges in arrears and the rent in arrears. On the other hand, with respect to the Defendant’s counterclaim claim, it recognized the facts as indicated in the separate sheet. On the other hand, the court sentenced the Plaintiff to compensate for the Defendant’s emotional distress damages caused by the Plaintiff’s tort, “3,00,000 won and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from December 13, 2013 to December 11, 2014, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “the judgment of the first instance court”). The court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendant’s remainder of the counterclaim claim (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

Accordingly, the defendant filed an appeal by demanding the revocation of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance and the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff's main claim. In the case of the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal, the Seoul Central District Court 2015Na7434 (the name of the main claim), and damages for the 2015Na7670 (Counterclaim), the appellate court shall accept the plaintiff's incidental appeal and against the defendant.