(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.02.07 2017나58451

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) 인천지방법원 2018.02.07 2017나58451

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The grounds for the judgment that the court shall describe this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the following is added to the end of the fourth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the following are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where “Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance” is changed to “Evidence No. 1, 2, 3, 8, and 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance.” (c)

[The details of the cost of disposal of the 2,3, and 4th floor waste, and the cost of removal of the 4th floor, paid by the Plaintiff, are as listed below. The total cost of the 1,300,000 won for the 2nd floor waste of KRW 1,430,000 for the 1,430,000 for the 3rd floor waste of KRW 170,870,000 for the 1,870,000 for the 3,40,000 for the 3,40,740,000 for the 4th floor of KRW 25,40,000 for the 2,540,000 for the 2,540,740,000 for the 2,940,940,000 for the 1,4000 won for the 2nd floor waste of KRW 3,400,305,000 for the 305 won

2. The plaintiffs asserted that ① unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from June 3, 2013 to August 3, 2015, which is the delivery date of the building of this case, ② the defendant sought payment of KRW 4,652,930, totaling the expenses for electrical recovery, winter repair, roof repair, environmental improvement charges, elevator repair, etc., which were entered into to repair defects in the building of this case from June 3, 2013 to August 3, 2015, which are the delivery date of the building of this case; ② the defendant sought payment of KRW 38,50,000,000, which is the aggregate of the expenses for waste disposal as stipulated in the letter of commitment performance as of June 24, 2015, and the expenses for removal due to the defendant's unlawful construction of the fourth floor.

3. Determination

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the determination of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from June 4, 2013 to July 6, 2013 as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent is the same as the statement in the fourth to sixth to the same page of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.10.12 2017나2062724

-전주지방법원 2017.11.22 2017가단14798

-대전지방법원논산지원 2015.01.29 2014가단2313

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.09.21 2018가단2798

-서울고등법원 2020.12.24 2020나2026452