(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.22 2015가단140101

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.22 2015가단140101

임대차보증금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 8,400,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 20, 2014, the Defendant, in the name of its partner C, refers to the “the first contract for sub-lease for the static copon in the E-M in Seoul Special Metropolitan City D located and operated by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.”

and after the conclusion, the name of the business operator of the Eart is the defendant, and the same year is the defendant.

6. 1. Under the Defendant’s name, the Plaintiff and the Hacconer are 30 million won in deposit, 1.2 million won in monthly rent, and 1.2 million won in sublease contract for the period from June 1, 2014 to May 31, 2016 (hereinafter “second contract”).

B) The Plaintiff concluded a new contract. B. The Plaintiff paid a deposit of KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and operated the Maccop in the said Mccop, and the sales of the said Mccop did not reach KRW 10 million per day, and subsequently declared the Defendant to terminate the instant contract on October 2014, and suspended the operation of the said Maccop, and thereafter suspended the operation of the said Maccop from January 2, 2015 to February 2 of the same year. C. The Plaintiff was fully paid the rent during the period of operation of the said Maccop.

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. As to the claim for termination of the contract, the summary of the claim 1) entered into the second contract with the defendant that "if the daily sales of mate are less than 10 million won, at any time when the plaintiff wants to go," and the plaintiff terminated the second contract in accordance with the above agreement, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff terminated the second contract, the defendant should return the above deposit amount of 30 million won to the plaintiff. 2) The plaintiff is the plaintiff, or considering the whole purport of arguments in the statement in the evidence No. 1-2, and No. 1-2, No. 2, and No. 2, the second contract stating that "at any time when Mate sales (day) takes place at any time when Macop is less than 0 million won, the defendant agrees to deduct Macop from the first contract."

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.16 2016나53120

-전주지방법원 2015.10.23 2015가단12224

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2020.05.15 2019고단1437

-서울남부지방법원 2013.11.05 2013가합4020

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.24 2018가단5216608