(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.08.17 2017가단23667

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) 서울북부지방법원 2018.08.17 2017가단23667

손해배상

Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) deliver 95.04 square meters of underground floors among the buildings listed in the attached Form;

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. Of the buildings indicated in the attached Form attached to the Defendant’s ownership, C was in the state of the expiration of the term of lease while occupying and using the instant underground floor leased from the Defendant, and C was not in the state of termination of possession.

B. Under the foregoing circumstances, around July 5, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the above underground room from the Defendant as the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 800,000, and the lease term of KRW 15,00,00, respectively.

C. On July 6, 2017, before the term of lease begins, the Plaintiff informed C of the fact that the Plaintiff was “Ahnhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

On that day, the original defendant reduced only the monthly rent of KRW 500,000 (payment on the 15th of each month) without considering the issue of early commencement of possession, and newly concluded a lease agreement including the following special agreement (hereinafter “instant special agreement”) (hereinafter “the instant lease”).

The monthly rent may be disposed of at will by the owner of the building at the time of default for three months.

A building owner B shall not be fully responsible for water leakage, damp, myi, flood, fire, theft, etc. on the underground.

This contract shall be in accordance with the promise of notarial deeds.

E. On the back of the above lease agreement, the Plaintiff written the phrase “to abide by the public order and good faith agreement” and signed in lieu of a notarial deed. On August 21, 2017, the Plaintiff continuously occupied and used the instant store under the pretext of monthly rent and paid only KRW 500,000 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. (i) The Plaintiff’s assertion is made by the Plaintiff on dual lease of the Defendant and the instant underground water leakage number.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.10.17 2017가단219298

-서울서부지방법원 2019.11.01 2018나37141

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.22 2018나85787

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.02.09 2016가단18760

-서울북부지방법원 2020.10.16 2020가단985