logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.10 2018나70561
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, stipulating that “the Plaintiff shall lease the land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant for the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 700,000, and the lease term of KRW 20,000 from October 20, 2014 to October 20, 2016, and was handed over by the Defendant around that time.

Since then, on December 4, 2014, the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the monthly rent of KRW 700,000,000, which was paid to the Defendant.

Accordingly, on July 17, 2015, the Defendant terminated the instant lease contract on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s delinquency in rent for at least two years (Evidence A 3) and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff at the Suwon District Court around that time.

On November 27, 2015, the above court rendered a ruling that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount calculated by deducting the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 700,000 per month from KRW 10,000 to KRW 10,000 from the defendant to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case, and deliver the building at the same time, and pay money calculated by the ratio of KRW 700,000 per month from January 20 to the completion date of delivery (No. 2015da49213)" (No. 2). The above ruling became final and conclusive at that time.

【In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff leased the instant building from the Defendant to use it as the processing plant for the parts for the repairs of the launch season, and at the time, the Defendant agreed to cooperate with the Plaintiff in the electric extension so that the power of 380V can be supplied from the above building. However, the Defendant failed to comply with the duty of cooperation necessary for the electrical extension of the above building, such as providing a certified copy of resident registration, to the Plaintiff.

As a result, the plaintiff can operate the facilities in the above building.

arrow