(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2021.02.04 2019가단207457

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) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2021.02.04 2019가단207457

부동산인도 등

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of each of the above real estate owned by the lessor, who entered into a lease contract with Nonparty C with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the Defendant is the sub-lessee who entered into a sub-lease contract with Nonparty C with the consent of the Plaintiff regarding each of the above real estate. Since each lease contract was delayed for more than three times, each of the above lease contracts was terminated as the Defendant delayed, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the delivery of the attached list

2. The defendant's assertion that each of the lease agreements in this case is not the defendant Eul, and the defendant did not have concluded a lease contract or sub-lease contract with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

3. The facts stated in Gap evidence No. 2 and No. 4 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the establishment of the authenticity. However, according to Eul evidence No. 16, the seal of the defendant is affixed to the franchise agreement No. 10, and according to Eul evidence No. 16, E directly operated the F coffee shop under the above franchise agreement at D.

There is no evidence that the Defendant operated the Fran shop, and thus, the Defendant’s seal appears to have affixed the seal to the other party, and the letter of termination of the evidence No. 11 of the above franchise agreement was made for the purpose of restoring the contract entered into by E to the original state, and it is difficult to view the content of the actual lease relationship. The other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is that the Defendant is either a sub-lessee of each real estate listed in the separate sheet or a person possessing the above real estate.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.19 2016가단5009677

-서울고등법원 2017.01.12 2015나2066500

-서울남부지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가합103632

-창원지방법원통영지원 2019.04.09 2019가단20282

-서울고등법원 2017.08.17 2016나2070544