(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.14 2016가단219252

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.14 2016가단219252

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s cause of the instant claim is as follows.

Defendant A and the deceased B (the co-defendant of this case was dead during the litigation, and his heir took over the lawsuit; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B”) are co-owners of each 2/3, 1/3 shares of the building listed in the attached Table. On November 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”) with the Defendants on the lease of 264.06m2 of the attached Form among the two floors of the building listed in the attached Table, which connects each point of the 1,2,3,4,4,5,6,1, and 264.06m2 in sequence among the two floors of the building listed in the attached Table.

However, in 2016, the Plaintiff measured the actual area of the leased part in the course of transferring the said 2nd floor to another person, and the area was limited to 219.88 square meters (including the interior columns - 4.31 square meters).

At the time of the instant contract, the Defendants concluded that they lease approximately 20 square meters with respect to the real estate 1 to the Plaintiff orally, and that they would make the right space at the entrance of the lower floor (the first floor) of the real estate 1 (hereinafter “second-class real estate”) available to the Plaintiff for profit by leasing it to the Plaintiff.

In addition, at the time of the contract of this case, the Defendants, as well as the first real estate and the second floor of the office building located in the second floor of the building that is different from that of the first real estate (hereinafter “third real estate”), have leased the third real estate to the Plaintiff and received the corresponding rent by including the area of the leased object in the area of the third real estate. The Plaintiff did not know the existence of the third real estate at all, and the Defendants did not know that the third real estate was leased to the other party, and the third real estate was being leased to the other party.

B. The primary cause of the tort is as above.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.12.14 2016가단132049

-수원지방법원 2016.09.21 2015나28217

-서울북부지방법원 2014.12.10 2013가합5781

-수원지방법원 2016.03.25 2015구단31668

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2021.02.17 2020가단751