(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.27 2017나53165

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 2017나53165

건물명도

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 the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the reasoning of the court of first instance is written or added as follows.

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is either written or added, is “assumed and judged.”

subsection (1) shall be filled by the following:

“A. The Defendant asserts that the obligation to deliver the real estate indicated in the attached list of the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit of this case are simultaneously performed. As to the amount of the lease deposit of this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount of the lease deposit of this case is KRW 5 million, while the Defendant asserted that the amount of the lease deposit of this case was KRW 5 million, which was the original KRW 5 million, but the increased amount was the final KRW 10 million. In light of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the purport of the whole records and arguments, it is reasonable to view that the lease deposit of this case is KRW 10 million. (1) Of the lease contract of November 28, 2007, written by the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the attached list of real estate, the deposit is KRW 5 million, and on December 18, 2009, the lease deposit of this case was stated as KRW 10 million.

The plaintiff asserted that the above lease contract of December 18, 2009 was prepared differently from the fact by requesting the defendant to obtain a loan from a financial institution. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Considering that the lease contract of December 18, 2009 was a disposal document, it is reasonable to determine the existence and content of the expression of intention as stated therein, unless there is any specific counter-proof.

② The report on current status of report on current status of place of report in 201320142016, which the Defendant prepared and submitted to the director of the competent tax office on real estate recorded in the attached list, is indicated as KRW 10 million.

③ The Defendant’s wife D shall be located at the new domicile of the Goak Agricultural Cooperative on December 17, 2009.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.10.16 2018나53801

-서울동부지방법원 2018.09.14 2017고단2058

-대구지방법원 영덕지원 2018.05.29 2017가단1849

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.04.29 2015가단18550

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.24 2019나998