(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.07.12 2016나64299

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) 인천지방법원 2017.07.12 2016나64299

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. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 28, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between Defendant B and Defendant B on the D’s ground (hereinafter “instant housing”) on the leased deposit amounting to KRW 65 million and the lease period from September 10, 2015 to September 10, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On February 10, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) sent to Defendant B a document verifying that he/she would cancel the instant lease agreement and claim damages on the ground that he/she had my/her coiation or habitation of the instant housing, on the grounds that he/she had been transferred the instant housing; (b) several months elapsed.

C. Defendant B consented to the termination of the instant lease agreement, and on March 28, 2016, Defendant B returned to the Plaintiff the entire deposit amount of KRW 65 million.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the premise that the Plaintiff could not achieve the purpose of the instant lease agreement due to the defect in the instant housing, Defendant B failed to perform the obligation under the lease agreement to deliver the housing in the condition that the lessee could use, and Defendant C did not clearly notify and explain the defect in the instant housing as an intermediary, and thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising therefrom, and the amount of damages is KRW 6 million, the down payment amount of the instant lease agreement.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a defect to the extent that a person could not live in the housing of this case at the time of conclusion of the instant lease agreement or delivery of the housing of this case, and there is no other evidence to

Rather, according to the statement No. 1, the instant lease agreement only states that “a lease is to be made in the present state of facilities” as the special terms and conditions, and is subject to brokerage.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.18 2017나62121

-수원지방법원여주지원 2019.10.15 2019가단1727

-대전지방법원서산지원 2020.06.16 2019가단5088

-서울남부지방법원 2021.04.22 2020가합112837

-서울북부지방법원 2020.11.24 2019가단14940