(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.12.11 2017가단64166

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) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.12.11 2017가단64166

임대차보증금

Text

1. As to KRW 12,010,209 and KRW 5,010,209 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from October 18, 2017 to December 11, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff included the value-added tax of KRW 50 million per lease deposit, KRW 440,000 per month (including value-added tax), and KRW 220,000 per month for management expenses, based on each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the Defendant recognized KRW 20,000 per month, since the Plaintiff recognized KRW 20,000 per month.

From October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018, lease was made.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”) B.

The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the sum of KRW 5 million on the day of the instant lease agreement, including KRW 35 million on August 24, 2016, and KRW 35 million as a deposit for lease. At the time of the conclusion of the said agreement, the Plaintiff was handed over the instant commercial building from the Defendant.

C. The commercial building of this case is on the first floor of the 7th floor and the 1st underground floor, and was a sales facility at the time of approval for use on December 14, 191.

D, the tenant of the instant commercial building, around September 30, 2006, completed business registration with the permission to operate the general restaurant business, and operated the so-called "E", and the alteration of use was made on December 3, 2007.

In order to use D’s business license, the Plaintiff received a business account in the name of D from the Defendant, and operated the fishing gear with the trade name “F” in the instant commercial building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, the purpose of the instant commercial building at the time of entering into the claim for damages based on the tort by the Plaintiff was an accommodation facility, and thus, it was impossible to obtain permission for restaurant business

The defendant, first of all, would allow the plaintiff to use the business license under the name of the former tenant D to obtain the business license under the name of the plaintiff by changing the use of the commercial building in this case.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2020.10.22 2019나66009

-대전지방법원천안지원 2017.09.27 2016가단115148

-서울고등법원 2015.05.21 2014누58862

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.11.20 2018가단72713

-수원지방법원 2018.05.31 2017나57882