logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.16 2017나1207
임대차보증금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of the corresponding part as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

A. From No. 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance to No. 3, the second to No. 4 of the No. 20 shall be as follows.

The plaintiff of the No. 1 of this case can recognize the fact between directors on February 1, 2016, after notice of the termination of the above sub-lease contract.

B. 4,400,000 won calculated by deducting 600,000 won for the rent of 5,000 won and 600,000 won for the rent of 5,000 won that the Plaintiff had not been paid from 5,00,000 won “.”

(c) to 19 pages 3 through 4 of the judgment of the first instance.

The fourth-class through fifth-class 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows.

In conclusion, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 4,400,00 (= KRW 5,00,000 - KRW 600,00) and damages for delay 2,754,839 as cited by the first instance court among them to the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from October 11, 2016 to February 10, 2017, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 1,645,161 (= KRW 4,400,000 - KRW 2,754,839) from the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the date of the first instance court’s decision, and to pay damages for delay 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, to 15% per annum from the date of the first instance court’s decision.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

arrow