손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On August 13, 2009, the Plaintiff leased part of the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building C (hereinafter “instant building”) 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 6,500,000, and the lease period from February 28, 2010 to February 27, 2013, with the lease deposit of KRW 100,000 (hereinafter “instant store”).
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The term “C Building convenience store (part 104)” as the special agreement at the time includes the following: “The C Building convenience store (part 104) shall be operated as a monopoly, and until 2015, the business security shall be harmed.”
B. On March 30, 2009, the Defendant purchased the sales right of 104 units of the instant building from D, the buyer of the instant building.
At the time of the purchase of the sale right by the Defendant, the entry of the existing “convenition store” was deleted and the phrase “convenition store and main product monopoly” was entered in the remarks column between D and K non-real estate trust company.
C. From April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff commenced the convenience store business at the instant store. From that point, the Plaintiff had been operating a sales store for office supplies in the trade name of “E” corporation in 101 and 103 square meters (total 270.09 square meters) of the instant building.
E, in addition to the phrases, if you sell fruit, beverage water, coffee, tea, taxation, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the instant goods”). D.
The Plaintiff agreed to reduce the monthly rent to KRW 5,500,000 on December 6, 2010 on the grounds that the goods, such as would, etc., are sold in E, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the monthly rent to KRW 5,500,000.
E. As the Plaintiff did not pay the monthly rent from January 1, 201, the Defendant filed a lawsuit (Seoul Southern District Court 201Da64458) seeking the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the delinquency in rent and the delivery of the instant store (Seoul Southern District Court 201Da6458).
On January 19, 2012, the above court held that “the plaintiff shall deliver the instant store to the defendant.”