logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.09.04 2018나322393
임대차보증금등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is as follows, is that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “additional judgment” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The written judgment of the first instance court "1. Facts of recognition, b. (c) and (c)" shall be followed as follows:

B. Since then, on November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff is required to add a factory building to the above C 2-dong general steel structure factory from the Defendant on November 19, 2015, to lease a single floor factory of the 3-dong general steel structure, and the above 4-dong general steel structure 3-dong general steel structure single-story factory (hereinafter referred to as “instant factory”).

) A lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) that is leased B from 105,00,000 won for deposit, monthly 10,500,000 won for rent (excluding value-added tax), or from 1 December 1, 2015 to 30 November 2017 for the term of lease (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”).

(C) The Plaintiff delivered the instant factory to the Defendant on December 1, 2017 upon the expiration of the term of validity of the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff sent the instant factory to the Defendant on or after the first day of December, 2017. The Plaintiff sent the instant factory as “No. B No. 1” in the fourth sentence of the judgment of the first instance.

The main contents of the grounds for appeal for additional determination are 1,2,3 and 4 of the factory of this case, which is a leased building, extended not only a new building, but also a new building. In particular, the Plaintiff leased the main 2,3 of the factory of this case used by E, a former lessee, and the Plaintiff had any defect at the time of commencement of the lease. As such, 44,353,00 won of the defect repair cost should not be deducted from the lease deposit.

2) On July 17, 2017, in violation of the duty of the lessor to maintain the conditions necessary for the use and profit-making of leased property by the Defendant for damages caused by water leakage, the pipe pipe inside the factory of this case was worn out.

As a result, the plaintiff is out of the order of 1st class of the hosting equipment.

arrow