beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.22 2013나2027914

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 29, 2010, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and C, and on December 29, 2010, concluded a lease agreement with C, that the Defendant would set the lease deposit amount of KRW 130 million, monthly rent of KRW 7.9 million with each of the third and fourth floors of the building located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant building”). At the Defendant’s request, the lessee of the previous lease agreement was changed from the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous lease agreement”) was concluded.

Around that time, the Defendant paid KRW 100 million, which is a part of the lease deposit under the previous lease agreement, to C, commenced the interior construction of the instant building necessary for the operation of Lestop, and as the Defendant failed to appropriately procure the construction cost, the aforementioned interior construction was suspended on February 201.

B. Around June 201, the Defendant made a false statement to the Plaintiff, stating that “Around June 2011, the Defendant would have paid KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff the lease deposit for the instant building, and the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the lease deposit for the instant building or the construction cost, which was 50% of the profit and loss of the instant building, and divided the profit by 50%. Until now, the Plaintiff has paid KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 70 million to the former business operator, and paid KRW 80 million with the construction cost.” However, at the same time, the Defendant did not pay KRW 10 million to C as the lease deposit for the instant building, but did not pay the remainder of the lease deposit for the instant building or the construction cost, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to operate the instant building in a normal manner with the Plaintiff’s mutual investment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Defendant.