logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원홍성지원 2019.11.13 2019가단33333
임대차보증금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 139,325,100 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 11, 2019 to August 16, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 1987, the Plaintiff leased a part of 4 square meters of the commercial building on the ground of Chungcheongnam-gun Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, and operated a cosmetic store at that place from the Defendant (a real estate business operator from around 1981 to a lease business operator).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant renewed the lease contract every one year or every two years, and the lease contract was concluded on June 1, 1996 on the condition that the lease area was 5 square meters depending on the increase in the area of the lease due to the expansion of the shock window in front of the said store.

On February 15, 1995, the Plaintiff additionally leased a shop (8 square meters) adjacent to the above store from the Defendant on February 15, 1995. At the time of the above lease, the Plaintiff used the wall of the above two leased objects as a intermittent and one store with the consent of the Defendant, and on June 10, 2004, entered into a lease contract with the content of leasing 13 square meters in total of the size of the above two stores, and operated a cosmetic sales store in its trade name, “D.”

C. On December 2014, the Plaintiff leased part of 43 square meters (13 square meters) of the Defendant and the instant commercial building as security deposit amounting to 150,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,640,000 (including additional taxes and management fees separately), and the rental period from July 10, 2017 to July 10, 2019 (hereinafter “instant rental contract”). The Plaintiff around that time paid the Defendant a security deposit amount of KRW 150,000,000 to July 10, 2019.

The instant lease agreement states that “The lease contract for commercial buildings in the present facilities shall be restored to the original state in principle at the time when the contract expires.”

E. On March 2018, Yeongdeungpo-gu notified the Plaintiff on the ground that he seized the Defendant’s claim for rent under the instant lease agreement against the Plaintiff, the Yeongdeungpo-gu Office issued a notice to the Plaintiff that he/she would pay the rent to the Young-gu Office.

Accordingly, the defendant on 2018.

arrow