beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.28 2015가단5120478

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 8, 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for a deposit of KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,500,000, and the lease term of KRW 3,500,000 with respect to the first floor and second floor of the building in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) from October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”. However, in the lease agreement, only the lessee indicated the Plaintiff Company A, and the Plaintiff Company B entered into a sub-lease agreement with the Plaintiff Company A in the form of the Defendant, and the lessee who moved into the first floor of the instant building.

B. According to the instant lease agreement, the special agreement stipulated that the lessor changed the use of the Class II neighborhood living facilities to a cycle, and the lessee decided to remodel at his own expense and ensure that the lessee is five years in a two-year renewal contract.

C. The Plaintiffs, as a result of the increase of monthly rent in relation to the renewal of the contract, were in conflict with the Defendant, at the time of the expiration of the lease term while being remodeled and used as an office with a considerable cost in the instant building.

Although the Defendant demanded an increase of KRW 500,000 for monthly rent, the Plaintiffs asserted that safety issues, such as the occurrence of noise, dust, vibration, and germs, have occurred due to the construction of a neighboring building (Seoul Mapo-gu E main complex site; hereinafter referred to as “humanistic construction”).

In October, 2014, the external heat of the instant building increased and filed a civil petition by the Plaintiffs, and the neighboring new construction contractor conducted a safety diagnosis through a specialized safety diagnosis company, which was diagnosed as “not at a stage of risk of the collapse or safety of the building,” and conducted an emergency repair for the part of emergency repair, such as rupture and rupture.

The defendant would raise the monthly rent to the plaintiffs through the content-certified mail on March 6, 2015.