logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.04.08 2016나200
임대차보증금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit for the lease of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000 (including value-added tax), and from April 17, 2014 to April 16, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the above lease deposit to the Defendant, and operated a restaurant from April 20, 2014 to April 20, with the name of “D” at the instant store.

B. After the Plaintiff leased the instant store, there was a phenomenon from the floor of the instant store, and the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 3,00,000 in total for five months, including August, September, 2014, September, November, 11, December, and January, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff could not properly operate his/her business.

C. Around January 22, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the said lease agreement, and the Defendant leased the instant store to E on March 6, 2015 by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and the lease period from March 30, 2015 to March 30, 2017.

After the termination of the above lease agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant returned only KRW 7,000,000,000, after deducting the total monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000 from KRW 10,000,000 for the above five months.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties, if the Plaintiff’s assertion was insufficient or the snow was found, caused a water leakage phenomenon in the instant store, and thus, customers did not work well. This is due to the fact that the Defendant, a lessor, failed to perform the duty to maintain the instant store, which is the object of lease, in a state necessary for the use and profit-making of the said store. As such, the Plaintiff’s foregoing period, which was August 2014, September 9, November 11, 2011, and January 2, 2015, etc., for which the Defendant could not properly operate the business.

arrow