(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.27 2019나75435

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.27 2019나75435

임차보증금 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From around 1992, the Plaintiff leased part of the 7th floor building located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) and operated a two-wheel automobile agency.

On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C as of December 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) between the lease section and the lease deposit, and the lease agreement between C and C on December 31, 2014, which is KRW 35 million, monthly rent of KRW 6 million, and the lease term of December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2016.

B. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, and the Defendant succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement by purchasing the instant building from C on August 30, 2017 and completing the registration of ownership transfer on October 30, 2017.

C. On February 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement, and completed the delivery of the leased object on August 21, 2018.

around that time, the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million, excluding KRW 15 million, which was reserved as the expenses for restitution from KRW 35 million to KRW 35 million.

On the other hand, on August 10, 2018, the Plaintiff concluded a premium contract with E for the first and second floors of the instant building, and arranged the Defendant to conclude a lease contract with E.

However, the defendant demanded E to pay 5 million won monthly rent for the first and second floors of the instant building, and E renounced the conclusion of a lease agreement with the defendant.

Accordingly, the plaintiff did not receive the premium of KRW 15 million from E.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted for damages on the ground of interference with the collection of premiums, consented to the lease of the first and second floors of the instant building in the monthly rent of 4 million won to E arranged by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is with E.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2020.10.22 2019가단238335

-울산지방법원 2020.12.16 2019가단121772

-울산지방법원 2018.05.04 2018가단1178

-서울서부지방법원 2017.04.13 2016나2974

-창원지방법원 2019.11.07 2018가단117336