[손해배상등청구사건][고집1978민,483]
Claim for expenses of reinstatement for leased buildings and need for restitution;
Upon entering into a lease agreement, the defendant (Lessee) is prohibited from executing any alteration, etc. in the structure of the building in question without the consent of the plaintiff (leased), and the defendant agreed to reimburse all expenses incurred in restoring the building to its original state (if not, it shall be restored to its original state) in order to compensate the defendant for all expenses incurred in restoring the building to its original state. However, if the defendant sold the building to the non-party and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the necessity of restoring the building to its original state shall be extinguished. Therefore, the claim for expenses
Articles 618, 654, and 615 of the Civil Act
Intervention in Salary
Maximum fever
Gwangju District Court (76Gahap37, 482) of the first instance trial
The judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 713,226 won and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from June 17, 197 to the full payment date.
The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
The lawsuit costs shall be divided into two parts, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the other.
This judgment may be provisionally executed.
(In the first instance, the claim was expanded)
The part of the first instance judgment against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,467,320 won with an amount of 144,230 won from June 17, 197 to 25,00 won with an amount of 5 percent per annum from the service day following the service day of the application for correction of the claim (as of September 29, 1977) to the day of full payment.
The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.
According to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (lease) and the whole purport of the parties' pleadings, which are not disputed in the formation, the lease contract was concluded between 3-1 and 37-1 and 55,000 won per month for the lease deposit and 55,000 won per month for the lease deposit, and 55,000 won per month for the lease contract was concluded on Sep. 17, 1974 by the defendant as to the plaintiff and the building of this case.
However, the plaintiff should sell the above building to others at the time of the conclusion of the lease agreement. If the plaintiff sells the above building to others within the lease period, the defendant, on February 25, 1976, issued an order to sell the building to the non-party Kim Jong-chul at any time, and received 800,000 won as the same contract deposit and ordered the transfer of ownership until March 15 of the same year to order the non-party to pay the above contract deposit to the non-party by ordering the above non-party to purchase and sell the above building to the non-party 1 at the time of the above sale contract (the non-party 2's order to purchase and sell the above building to the non-party 1 at the time of the above sale contract to the non-party 30 times the above contract deposit to the non-party 1 at the time of the above sale and purchase agreement to the non-party 30 times the above contract deposit to the non-party 30 times the above non-party 2's assertion that the above contract deposit will not be paid to the non-party 1000 billion won.
Second, it is argued that the defendant sought the payment of rent of 13-month rent of 15,00 won from May 18, 1976 to June 16, 197 (5,000 x 13-715,000). Thus, according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 5 without dispute over the establishment, it can be acknowledged that the defendant ordered the plaintiff of this building on June 16, 197, and there is no other proof as to the fact that the defendant paid rent of 12-month rent of 660,000 won from May 18, 197 to June 17, 197 (5,000 x 6,000 x 6,000 x 600 x 60,000 x 5,000 x 36,23636,5636,265,265,260).
Third, at the time of the lease agreement of the building, the name city of the building was ordered to restore the building to its original state at the time of lease, and the defendant asserts that the defendant is seeking payment of KRW 202,320,00,00 for the restoration of the building under the condition that the building was ordered to restore to its original state after the order was issued. Thus, according to the contents of No. 1 in wartime, Gap's evidence, Kim Tae-chul, and the appraisal report by the trial witness at the trial of the first instance trial of the party testimony at the time of the party Kim Jong-jin, the defendant cannot perform the construction of the building without the plaintiff's consent, and the construction of the building cannot be restored to its original state, and the cost required for its restoration is not required to restore the building to its original state to its original state without the defendant's intention or negligence (see Article 7 of the above lease agreement), and the contents of the contract for exhibition are presumed to be unnecessary for the plaintiff to restore the building to its original state without the defendant's order to restore the original state to its original state.
Fourth, until June 16, 197, the name city of the building in this case, the plaintiff claimed a substitute payment of KRW 25,000,000, because the defendant did not pay the amount of KRW 25,000, which is the sum of the water use fee and electricity use fee of the building in this case.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the unpaid rent of 713,226 won from May 18, 1976 to June 16, 197, and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum of the civil interest rate from June 17, 1977 to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is justified within the extent recognized above, and the remainder is without merit. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is different from the party members, and the costs of lawsuit are modified as ordered by the order, and are to be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder at the defendant's expense. It is so decided as per Disposition with the provisional execution attached.
Judges Lee Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)