logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.10.22 2020나55107
부인의 소
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. The purport of the claim is.

Reasons

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in the appellate court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court's judgment is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the defendant's additional determination on the part claimed by the appellate court, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text of

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion that the land of this case is the land essential for the management of the debtor foundation; the above foundation had no economic ability to purchase the land of this case for the management of the debtor foundation; the debtor foundation is not an agricultural corporation under Article 6 (1) of the Farmland Act; the acquisition of the land of this case itself was not originally impossible; in the absence of such circumstances, the defendant acquired the land of this case for the smooth operation of the debtor foundation; the defendant suffered financial losses for a long time due to the acquisition of the land of this case; the rent prescribed in the mediation of this case was determined at a reasonable level, not by simply considering the size of the land; and the debtor foundation cannot obtain the right to use the land of this case ultimately from the defendant as a result of the lawsuit of this case; if the defendant foundation cannot obtain the right to use the land of this case ultimately, it must be removed from all of the facilities of this case; however, the act of mediation of this case can be seen as a decrease of the debtor foundation's property in terms of social norms or consideration; however, the debtor foundation's property is no longer inevitable at the time.

arrow