logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.09 2016나2015851
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. (i) On January 30, 2008, the Plaintiff leased, from C, approximately KRW 25 square meters of a 1studio and sap 2-type neighborhood living facilities and housing 102.23 square meters (hereinafter “the instant commercial building”) on January 30, 2008, for the purpose of establishing a real estate brokerage office, approximately KRW 25 square meters of deposit money, KRW 1.5 million of rent, the contract period from March 20, 2008 to March 20, 201.

B. On February 28, 2008, the Defendant leased from C the remaining parts of the instant commercial buildings, excluding the leased portion of the Plaintiff, from February 28, 2008, to March 21, 201, the deposit amount of KRW 130 million, monthly rent of KRW 4.5 million, and the term of the contract from March 21, 2008 to March 21, 201.

B. (1) Around March 21, 2008, the Defendant, upon delivery of the leased part of the Defendant from C on the part of March 21, 2008, started internal interior interior interior tegrative construction to operate a slaughter restaurant that overlaps from the end of March 2008, and completed the construction around April 2008, and operated the business by opening the tegrative restaurant that overlaps on April 23, 2008.

⑵ 피고가 인테리어 공사를 마친 이 사건 상가의 피고 임차부분 전면인 별지도면 ㈎부분 13㎡에는 판넬과 샤시로 된 접이식 문 형태의 가설물이, 피고 임차부분 후면인 같은 도면 ㈏부분 3㎡에 판넬로 된 가설물이 각 설치되어 있었다

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant building”). C.

On April 7, 2008, the head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government urged C, the owner of the instant commercial building, to voluntarily remove the instant building, since the instant building was illegal in violation of Article 9(1) of the Building Act.

The building of this case was removed on May 13, 2008, and the restoration to the original state was carried out on May 14, 2008 following the date.

The plaintiff's application for registration of establishment of real estate brokerage office and return thereof (i.e., May 14, 2008).

arrow