(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.20 2014가단5258789

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 2016.01.20 2014가단5258789

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Plaintiff’s assertion and the issues of this case

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is the former lessee of the first floor C No. 112 (hereinafter “the instant building”) in Goyang-si, Goyang-si, Ilyang-si, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to newly lease the said building on August 13, 2014, under which D acquired the goodwill of the said building from the Defendant for KRW 19 million (hereinafter “Premium premium contract”). 2) If D is unable to operate a beauty shop in the said building at the time of the said premium contract, the lease agreement between the lessor and D was invalidated, and the Defendant agreed to re-let and operate the said building.

(3) On August 21, 2014, D entered into a contract for leasing the instant building with a lessor, E, and F (the deposit KRW 20 million per month, KRW 1 million per month, and the period of two years) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); however, D is unable to run an interview with a lessor’s port in the same building (hereinafter “instant lease contract”); according to the instant agreement, D has the right to claim a return of KRW 19 million for the premium and the right to claim a compensation for damages equivalent to the monthly rent that D shall pay to the lessor by the end of the instant lease contract, and as the Plaintiff acquired each of the above claims from D, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant agreement was reached between D and the Defendant at the time of the premium agreement.

2. Whether an agreement to invalidate a lease agreement exists.

A. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness G and the statement of Gap evidence No. 6, which seems to conform to the facts that the agreement in this case was reached, are difficult to recognize the agreement in this case only with the evidence submitted by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case premised on the above agreement cannot be accepted.

B. First, the witness G made an oral agreement on the date of the instant lease agreement, and in detail made oral in another place.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.07.12 2017가단101226

-서울동부지방법원 2019.04.10 2018나27159

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.25 2014가단5349791

-서울고등법원 2015.07.09 2014나2039259

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.09.11 2017가단13036