beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff in relation to the defendant who is ordered to pay below.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From May 2002, the Plaintiff leased and used the lease deposit amounting to KRW 2,00,000,000, and KRW 400,000,000 from the Defendant’s Namyang city owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant vinyl”).
B. While the Plaintiff was engaged in a false manufacturing business, which is not Melel, with F, in the instant vinyl, with F’s trade name, in the instant vinyl, the Plaintiff was engaged in the said business by changing the lessee’s name and the business operator’s registration name in F in around 2006, and operated the said business solely from May 2010.
C. On the side of the instant vinyl, there was another vinyl that I used as the original warehouse by leasing from the Defendant, but, in order to repair the entrance of the said vinyl leased by I, C was on June 11, 201, a fire, at around 14:05, that was all the said vinyl, and the instant vinyl, etc., carried with the fire (hereinafter “the instant fire”).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 through 6, Gap evidence 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4-2 or video, the result of on-site inspection by the commissioned judge of the trial court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In full view of the following facts: (a) evidence No. 11-1-2 and No. 11-5 of the evidence No. 11-2 and No. 5 of the first instance trial; and (b) the testimony of witnesses D, witnesses of the trial party C, I of the first instance trial; and (c) the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of on-the-spot inspection, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments, M is a pro rata relationship with the Defendant, without any specific occupation, residing in a dry field owned by the Defendant in the vicinity of the instant vinyl, owned by the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, and managed the dry field, orchard, orchard, and vinyl (M also was called as a three-way relationship between I and the Defendant, and the Defendant was supported by the Defendant’s husband, while the Defendant’s husband died.