logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.07.13 2017나8743
임대료
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The decision of the court of first instance is delivered with paragraph (1).

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On September 2015, the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s land and its ground building (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Busan East-gu, Busan-gu, and leased the first underground floor (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) among the above buildings to the Defendant as KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent, KRW 770,000 (including value-added tax). After the conclusion of the said lease agreement, the Defendant was obligated to pay the said unpaid rent to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff did not pay the said unpaid rent of KRW 5,720,00 to May 15, 2017.

B. When concluding a lease agreement on the instant commercial building, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the initial lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000 and KRW 550,000 per month (including value-added tax), but the Defendant decided to purchase the instant building in the future, and paid the Plaintiff additional amount of KRW 10,000,000 per month as deposit money to indicate such agreement.

Meanwhile, the Defendant was unable to use the instant commercial building from July 2016 to May 2016, and thus, did not have a duty to pay rent from this point of time. Even if not, the Plaintiff did not sell the instant building to the Defendant, and thus, only KRW 550,000 per month (including value-added tax) as originally agreed upon as the rent was paid. Since the Defendant already paid KRW 9,070,000 from December 2015 to November 2016, the Defendant ultimately paid the unpaid rent of KRW 830,00 (= KRW 9,900,000 in total from December 2015 to May 2017 (= KRW 550,000 in monthly x 18 months) - KRW 9,700,000 in the rent already paid).

2. Determination

A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, 4, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 3, 9, and 13 (including branch numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff and the defendant are among the commercial buildings of this case (the total area of 255 square meters) on September 10, 2015.

arrow