logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.29 2018가단5009015
임대료
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 39,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 20, 2018 to March 29, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 18, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the term of lease from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, with a D Hotel located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant hotel”) as KRW 350,000,000 (including value-added tax, value-added tax, and payment on the last day of each month).

B. From December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017, the Defendant paid only KRW 22 million monthly rent to the Plaintiff. On December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant as a facility premium.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the fact that the unpaid rent claim is recognized, the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid rent under the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had reduced the monthly rent of KRW 3 million. However, it is insufficient to recognize it only by the statement in the evidence No. 7. Rather, on November 24, 2016, the Plaintiff proposed to remodel the instant hotel building at the expense of the Plaintiff and to reduce the rent when the Defendant replaced the internal facility, but the Defendant failed to reach an agreement by expressing his/her intent not to renew the lease contract.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff filed a claim for damages or a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment with the value of KRW 10 million with no delivery of the hotel of this case without delivering the hotel of this case and by threatening the business operator to report the business closure without delivering the hotel of this case. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount to the plaintiff as compensation for damages caused by tort, and the defendant is from the plaintiff.

arrow