(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2019.04.05 2018가단34847

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) 창원지방법원진주지원 2019.04.05 2018가단34847

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. (1) The Plaintiff was aware of the store with the mind to operate the house with the house with the mind of mind. However, on April 2017, C (the husband of the Defendant) who became aware of the fact, solicited D (the Plaintiff was divorced from the Plaintiff around 2014) to lease the building under construction of the Defendant.

(2) At the time, the Defendant couple newly built a commercial building on the land level E in the Gyeongdong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, but the Plaintiff and D agreed to enter into a lease agreement on the part of the first floor (hereinafter “instant store”) with the Defendant couple’s oral finding around that time, with respect to the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million and KRW 8 million in monthly rent.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). At the time, the Defendant permitted the Plaintiff and D to the effect that “the instant store will be suitable for its original purpose for interior interior interior interior decoration construction.”

B. D’s interior interior interior interior interior interior works, such as kitchen, toilet, and ceiling, were conducted since around that time, D’s interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works of the instant store. During the construction process, it was argued that D’s interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works had a problem with D’s existing toilets and equipment installed during the construction process, or that “the construction is being delayed” or “the construction is delayed.

C. At the end of the above dispute over the cancellation of a lease agreement, the Plaintiff and D opened a restaurant with another store after leaving the instant store, and the Plaintiff and D as an arbitration, and D representing the Plaintiff and C representing the Defendant around July 2017 agreed that “The instant contract is reversed, and D does not require the Defendant to demand the cost of removal, etc. of the floor of the instant store instead of claiming the Defendant to cover the cost of removal, etc. of the waste on the floor of the instant store.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”). Grounds for recognition:

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.11.27 2014가단15244

-대전지방법원 2017.01.26 2016고정973

-서울남부지방법원 2017.08.11 2015가단229499

-대전지방법원 2016.10.06 2016나2510

-서울고등법원 2017.04.13 2016나2023616