logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.06.09 2016나54167
임관리비 등
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company entrusted by Seoul Metropolitan Government with the right to occupy and use, and to manage and operate, the shopping mall in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”).

On February 25, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court 2014hap32, and received a decision on March 24, 2014.

In the above procedure, as of March 31, 2014, investigation reports were prepared at approximately KRW 3.6 billion in case of the plaintiff's assets, and KRW 63.4 billion in case of the debt.

On February 2, 2015, the rehabilitation court rendered a decision to abolish the rehabilitation plan before authorization pursuant to Articles 286(1)1 and 231 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act on the grounds that the execution of the rehabilitation plan is impossible and it constitutes grounds for exclusion of the rehabilitation plan.

B. (1) On October 27, 2009, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff with regard to KRW 518,930,00 for the instant commercial building (However, 311,30,000 among them shall be paid as a deposit and the remainder of KRW 207,60,000 for monthly rent shall be converted into monthly rent), monthly rent of KRW 64,000 for 64,000 for 200 for 201, and one year from the date of completion and occupancy, respectively (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On October 6, 2011, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff with regard to the instant commercial building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and operated a store by delivery of the said subparagraph 128 around that time.

(2) Article 3(2) of the Regulations on the Management and Operation of Commercial Building of this case provides that “When a lessee intends to continue to conduct a business, he/she shall make a written request to the managing and operating company (Plaintiff) for the renewal of the lease at least one month prior to the expiration of the contract: Provided, That if the request for renewal is not made, the lease shall be renewed for one year

(3) The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, and the legal representative of the lessee, including the Defendant, etc., was the Plaintiff on September 1, 2016.

arrow