beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.06.07 2016가단30387

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of 26 square meters of a store on the ground of 1st floor, B, and 1st century (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On December 6, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease deposit amounting to KRW 30 million for the instant building, KRW 350,000 for monthly rent, and KRW 1,000 for the lease term (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the Plaintiff has operated a store with the name of “C” at that place.

C. Even after the lease term stipulated in the instant lease agreement expires, implied renewal has been made at least four times, and the lease termination date by the last implied renewal was December 5, 2015.

On March 30, 2015, the Defendant issued the instant notice of termination to the effect that “the instant building is ordered to be ordered by September 30, 2015” to the Plaintiff on March 30, 2015.

D. On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff delivered the instant building to the Defendant. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On October 2015, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion demanded the Defendant to renew the instant lease agreement, but the Defendant rejected it.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff arranged a new lessee to the Defendant and demanded the Plaintiff to receive the premium from the new lessee arranged for it.

However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request to arrange for a new lessee, stating that “the instant building is used as a store and has no intention to lease”.

Accordingly, the defendant has an obligation to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a tort that violates the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, since the plaintiff had an opportunity to recover the premium at source.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million to the lessee for a premium to the former lessee, and KRW 15 million for a five-year operating period.