(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2017.07.05 2017가합11040

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) 광주지방법원순천지원 2017.07.05 2017가합11040

건물

Text

1. The defendant is paid KRW 500,000,000 from the plaintiffs, and at the same time, among the buildings listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) On February 16, 2006, the Plaintiffs leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 500,000,000,000, monthly rent, KRW 66,600,000, and the lease period from October 9, 2006 to October 31, 2008.

(2) The Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a renewal contract regarding the instant lease agreement as KRW 16,50,00 per month on September 18, 2008, under which the term of lease was changed from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2010, and again, entered into a renewal contract as of November 2, 2010, under which the term of lease was changed from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 201. The term of lease was changed from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2012, and the term of lease was changed as of September 30, 2012.

(3) The Defendant paid a lease deposit to the Plaintiffs, and received delivery of the instant commercial building, and has operated a pharmacy in the name of “E pharmacy” until now.

(4) On April 22, 2016 and August 25, 2016, the Plaintiffs notified that the instant lease agreement was terminated by the expiration date of September 30, 2016, as there is no intent to renew the lease agreement to the Defendant.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The instant lease agreement terminated upon the expiration of September 30, 2016, which was explicitly renewed on September 30, 2014, and the expiration date of the lease term, and the Plaintiffs are the duty to return the lease deposit in the simultaneous performance relationship with the India. As such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant commercial building to the Plaintiffs at the same time receiving KRW 500,000 from the Plaintiffs.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s claim of simultaneous performance defense or lien based on the Defendant’s right to claim damages equivalent to the premium

A. The defendant's gist of the defense is as follows.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.04.08 2014가단20839

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.12.14 2016가합13681

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.28 2014가단218847

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.01.25 2018가단7060

-대구지방법원김천지원 2015.01.28 2014가단8406