logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.30 2018나457
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 of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) in addition to the addition of the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court as stated in paragraph (2) below, the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance is d. 1. 2.

subsection (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) shall be deleted.

In the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, "(Article 10-4 (1) proviso 7 of the same Act)" shall be deemed "(Article 10 (1) proviso 7 (b) of the same Act)".

3. Supplementary judgment

A. Article 10(1)7(a) of the proviso to Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act provides that “When concluding a lease agreement, the lessee shall be specifically notified of a removal or reconstruction plan that includes the time of construction and required period, etc. and comply with the plan.” The Defendant did not notify the lessee of the removal or reconstruction plan of the removal or reconstruction plan of the building at the time of signing the initial lease agreement with the Plaintiff on September 2, 2013 or of the re-contract on September 12, 2015.

Also, even if all buildings are, there was no safety problem.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for damages under Article 10-4 (3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

B. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, in light of the following circumstances where the purport of the evidence Nos. 16, 16, 3 and the entire purport of the pleading.

① The Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to interference with the opportunity to recover the premium on the ground that C buildings do not fall under subparagraph 7(a) of the proviso to Article 10(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, but fall under subparagraph 2(b) of the same Article, “where a building is likely to be damaged or partly damaged, etc.

arrow