logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016나56725
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

B. Determination as to claims equivalent to the value of the 5 good;

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

Except for the following changes, “The part” is identical to the reasons indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Plaintiff’s assertion

"Summarys"

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff a surcharge of 10,600,000 won for the unpaid rent (1,60,000 won x 25 months) from December 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015, and since the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff a surcharge of 10% per month for the unpaid rent in the instant sublease contract, the amount shall be calculated at the rate of 2% per month (within 10% per month), water purifier rent of 80,400,000 won, unpaid management expenses of 19,45,179, 200,000,000 won, 30,000,000 won, 10,7040,000 won, 106,7040,706, 4005, 106,704, 1006, 1006, 400

2. B. 5) Determination on the claim equivalent to the value of the goods in the instant sub-lease contract provides that “All facilities, fixtures, etc. in the instant private teaching institute are owned by the sub-contractor and the sub-lessee shall maintain and manage them faithfully by the expiration date of the contract.” The Plaintiff paid KRW 45,00,000 to H who was the former operator of the instant private teaching institute while leasing the instant private teaching institute, as seen earlier, under the pretext of the facility cost, etc. of the instant private teaching institute. The fact that the Defendant arbitrarily removed and disposed of part of the Plaintiff’s goods in the instant private teaching institute does not conflict between the parties.

arrow