logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.01.12 2015가단222828
손해배상(기)
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 June 25, 201, the Plaintiff set the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million from July 13, 2011 to July 12, 2012, and the monthly rent of KRW 7,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) to the Defendant, among the five-story buildings on the ground C, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Plaintiff leased the two to five (5) stories (hereinafter “instant cartel”).

B. On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement with each other on the following grounds:

The plaintiff

1. The terms and conditions of the lease of this case (a security deposit of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 7 million) against the instant telecom shall be modified by KRW 100 million and KRW 5 million per month.

2. On May 18, 2012, the current lessee shall be paid KRW 40,000,000 per day to the current lessee as the amount of damages, and KRW 20 million shall be paid to the current lessee on May 31, 2012.

3. The necessary expenses shall be paid separately.

4. Deposit KRW 100 million shall be paid on June 5, 2012;

(C) The return cycle to the defendant.

On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff and D, the co-owner of the instant telecom, asserted that the lease contract with the Defendant was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, and the Daejeon District Court 2013Gadan3948, which filed a lawsuit seeking delivery of building, etc. with the Defendant. On August 23, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant is paid KRW 108,590,407 from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, delivered the instant telecom to the Plaintiff and D”.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and D appealed to the said judgment by Daejeon District Court 2013Na15430, and the said court rendered a judgment on February 11, 2015 that “the Defendant shall deliver the instant telecom to the Plaintiff and D”.

The defendant appealed to the above appellate judgment by Supreme Court Decision 2015Da20087, but the Supreme Court sentenced the decision of the appellate court on June 24, 2015.

The Plaintiff was handed over from the Defendant around April 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 10, and arguments.

arrow