beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.08.11 2016나708

보증금반환

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3.Paragraph 2 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Reasons

1. The court of first instance dismissed the claim for the return of the deposit for sub-lease against the defendant, and partly accepted the claim for the amount of the preliminary claim. Since the defendant appealed, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the legitimacy of the judgment of the first instance which partially accepted the conjunctive claim, and the primary claim is excluded from the subject of the trial of this court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da31624, Feb. 10, 1995; 2002Meu85, Dec. 26, 2002).

A. On March 30, 2013, the Defendant, from March 30, 2013 to March 30, 2015, leased 25,000,000 won as lease deposit, and 600,000 won as monthly rent, respectively, (hereinafter “E”) operated the instant dance hall.

B. Upon soliciting the Defendant to operate a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) within the instant dance hall, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant on August 18, 2014, and KRW 10,000,000 on September 2, 2014, and began business after receiving delivery of the restaurant from August 30, 2014.

C. However, on November 7, 2014, F, the Defendant’s land, had the Defendant’s landed with the Defendant, and destroyed the entire dancing hall of this case by setting the dancing hall of this case. For this reason, the Plaintiff was unable to run the restaurant of this case from around that time.

By November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff operated the instant restaurant, thereby gaining profits of KRW 3,047,810.

The defendant received KRW 20,000,000 from F as compensation for the above fire-prevention case, and received half of the lease deposit from C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not renewed when concluding a sublease contract with the Defendant on the instant restaurant.