(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.04.27 2017가단103228

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) 대구지방법원 2018.04.27 2017가단103228

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,929,50 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 24, 2018 to April 27, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C operated a private teaching institute with the trade name of “E” in the fourth-story store of 187.57 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) among the buildings owned by the Defendant, Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu-gu, which is owned by the Defendant.

B. On May 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a premium contract with C, and acquired the said private teaching institute from C. On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million, and the lease term of KRW 1 million as of February 1, 2017.

C. After that, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Nonparty F, who intends to become a new lessee on November 28, 2016, regarding the said private teaching institute (hereinafter “the instant premium contract”) with the Plaintiff at the instant store (hereinafter “the instant premium contract”).

After that, the Plaintiff requested that the Defendant enter into a new lease contract with Nonparty F, who is the new lessee arranged by the Plaintiff upon the termination of the instant lease contract, on several occasions. However, the Defendant refused to enter into a new lease contract on the ground that the contract can be renewed for one year, but the contract can not be concluded with the new lessee.

E. Accordingly, on December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content demanding the suspension of such act on the ground that the Defendant’s act stipulated in Article 10-4(1)4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease”) interferes with the collection of the Plaintiff’s premium.

F. On December 30, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that it is possible for the Defendant to hold office on the ground that the Defendant intended to directly use the said certificate, but it is impossible to transfer the said certificate to another person.

G. The lease of this case was terminated on February 1, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조의4 제1항 제4호

유사 판례

-대법원 2022. 8. 11. 선고 2022다202498 판결

-대구지방법원 2017.05.18 2016나311016

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.12.21 2016가단46036

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.13 2017나36153

-대구지방법원 2017.01.13 2016가단22070