logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.07.23 2014가단29087
권리금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 2 million, KRW 4 million, KRW 1.6 million, monthly rent, and KRW 1.6 million, from November 18, 2012 to November 17, 2014, with respect to the unit D Building 107 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) owned by the Defendant.

B. On November 1, 2012, the date of the contract, the Plaintiff paid 2.2 million won to C representing the Defendant, and 3.8 million won on October 10 of the same month, respectively, and paid 6 million won as security deposit and premium. Since around that time, the Plaintiff was transferred the instant commercial building and completed the interior construction.

C. The Plaintiff began to delay the monthly rent from January 2014, because the amount of monthly rent in the instant commercial building had a poor business performance. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff and C representing the Defendant agreed on September 1, 2014 to terminate the instant lease agreement as of September 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the intent of the Plaintiff’s assertion that premium is excessive compared to the objective situation of the instant commercial building, the key nature of the instant lease agreement was the deposit, and the Plaintiff intended to recover the premium by transferring the right of lease to another party, but the Defendant obstructed this, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the KRW 4 million and the damages for delay paid for the premium.

B. As to the fact that the premium under the instant lease agreement was in fact the nature of the deposit, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, according to the purport of the written evidence and the entire pleadings, the deposit under the instant lease agreement was set at KRW 2 million at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, and is separate from this.

arrow