(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.30 2014나28397

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.30 2014나28397

명도소송, 손해배상 등

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant D corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff and the joint plaintiff in the first instance trial against the defendants in the first instance trial, and the defendant C transferred the real estate in the attached Form (hereinafter "the instant officetel") to the plaintiff, and the defendants jointly and severally requested the plaintiffs to pay KRW 6,00,000. The court of first instance accepted part of the plaintiff's claim for the delivery of the instant officetel against the defendant Eul in the payment of deposit and redemption, and all of the plaintiffs' claim for the payment of the amount against the defendants against the defendants was dismissed.

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed against the part of the claim for payment, the object to be tried by the court of first instance is limited to the part of the claim and the part of the claim for the amount extended in the trial.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the co-Plaintiff A in the first instance trial are married, and the Defendant C is the lessee who leased the instant officetel from A as follows, and the Defendant D is the real estate broker who operates J-real estate with Defendant C and a person who has a relationship with Defendant C.

B. On June 16, 2012, A entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C to lease the instant officetel at KRW 10,00,00,000 from June 24, 2012, the lease period of KRW 12 months from June 24, 2012, and KRW 950,000 (payment on June 24, 201), and around that time, A handed over the instant officetel to Defendant C.

C. From September 24, 2013, Defendant C did not pay a rent. Defendant D’s phone called on September 25, 2013 to the effect that Defendant C did not intend to extend the instant lease agreement, and requested Defendant C to the effect that the contract for seeking a new tenant would be concluded through itself. The Plaintiff thereafter rejected the said proposal through Defendant D and telephone.

Defendant D, on September 27, 2013, came to be a cell phone of the Plaintiff and A, thereby making the tenants of H building 414 into the main house of the house owner.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.12.15 2015나2023282

-광주고등법원 2019.05.08 2018나20926

-대전고등법원 (청주) 2018.10.30 2017나5724

-서울고등법원 2016.12.23 2016나2046923

-서울고등법원 2015.07.10 2014나45098