KCC 594/2002

This case involved a disputed tenancy where it was discovered there was a difference in the actual and reported area of the property and a request for an expert to be appointed was made. This was rejected but the court had the authority to evaluate the evidence when making its decision.

Background

A company filed a case against a company and requested the court dismiss a disputed tenancy agreement and order the company to provide compensation and legal interest.

The court rejected the case.

The company appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court upheld the appealed ruling.

Decision

The company appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and stated in its grounds of appeal that the ruling had violated the right of defence because it had maintained before the court that the area of the rented property was 1100 meters but it had then discovered that the actual area was 1389 meters and had requested the court to refer the case to investigation but the court had ignored the request.