(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.01.14 2015나103256

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) 대전지방법원 2016.01.14 2015나103256

건물명도

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 2,939,463 and also the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

The court's explanation of this case is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Article 1, 2, and 3, in addition to the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.

[Supplementary or additional parts] The “9,780,762 won 451,778 won” of the 7th 2 through 5 parallels 11,123,654 won = Total cost 9,630,733 won 963,073 won.

The 8th parallel 18 to 9th parallels are as follows:

B. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, such as overdue rent and the first overdue rent, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 9,778,882 due to overdue rent, etc.

2) The Plaintiff is seeking KRW 11,123,654, including value-added tax, to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant agreed to remove the facilities installed by the Defendant’s mother-B and concluded the instant lease agreement.

In other words, the following circumstances are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts recognized earlier, the facts recognized earlier, and the evidence as seen earlier, i.e., the Defendant concluded a removal service contract with E on the premise that it is obligated to restore it to its original state at the time of the termination of the instant lease contract, and upon the termination of the said contract, the Defendant was able to request the Plaintiff to restore it to its original state in accordance with the instant lease contract and to deduct the expenses therefrom from the deposit for lease, and expressed its intent to bear up to KRW 9,00,000 with the expenses for restoration to its original state, and ii) the lease service office of this case should be equally used by the existing lessee (the nine middle part).

4. The lease contract with the previous B shall be null and void from the date on which the main contract is affixed.

‘B's obligation to restore to its original state is extinguished, which is existing by the defendant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2019.06.19 2018나1346

-서울고등법원 2018.05.03 2017나2023088

-서울고등법원 2015.04.29 2014나43283

-서울고등법원 2018.11.22 2018나2023801

-서울남부지방법원 2016.12.02 2016가합12