(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.11.02 2017나14605

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) 청주지방법원 2018.11.02 2017나14605

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including the counterclaim claim extended by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in this court, is as follows.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts: (a) On April 8, 2013, the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the terms of KRW 5,000,000 as security deposit plus KRW 5,000,000 as security deposit (total amount of KRW 10,00,000 as security deposit), monthly rent KRW 400,00 as security deposit, and the term of lease from April 10, 201 to 60 months as security deposit (hereinafter “each building of this case”).

(2) At that time, the Defendant received the lease deposit from the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs registered the business as representative “A” and “E” in each of the instant buildings, and operated restaurant business.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 10 evidence, Eul 1 and 5 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Termination of the instant lease agreement

A. In light of the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 8, 2, and 3, the Plaintiffs paid only rent from April 8, 2013 to September 30, 2014 for the period from September 30, 2014, upon which a lease agreement was concluded, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs of the fact that the instant lease agreement was terminated on August 13, 2015, and the Plaintiffs received the said notification around that time.

According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was terminated on August 13, 2015 by the Defendant’s declaration of termination.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs did not perform the duty of repair, such as leakage and repair of each building of this case which is the object leased, and thus, it was impossible for the Plaintiffs to conduct restaurant business on November 6, 2014. Accordingly, the lease contract was terminated as the lessor’s nonperformance of the duty of repair.

In addition, the plaintiffs are repair works due to water leakage around March and April 2014.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2016.10.25 2016가단4062

-서울고등법원 2016.05.13 2015나2063280

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.17 2014가단83713

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.21 2016가단116068

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.09.15 2016가단29271