(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2014.05.20 2013가단34142

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) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2014.05.20 2013가단34142

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant building from the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, KRW 2.6 million per month, and the lease term of KRW 2.6 million from February 20, 2013 to February 20, 2015. At that time, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the deposit amount of KRW 20 million to the Defendant.

B. From July 2013, the Plaintiff did not pay the rent to the Defendant.

Therefore, on October 21, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking delivery of the building of this case at the same time, asserting that the lease contract was terminated on the grounds of delay in the Plaintiff’s rent payment by this Court Decision 2013Da19740, Oct. 21, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking delivery of the building of this case from July 21, 2013 to July 28, 2013, deducting the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 2.6 million (2.6 million x 1.1) from July 21, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff leased the instant building to operate the printing business, and the Defendant was well aware of such circumstances.

However, since early June 2013, the Plaintiff requested repair work to the Defendant, but the Defendant had a problem in the drainage system since early September 2013, and the construction work to ask drainage pipes was conducted on the ground that the water was generated on the floor of the instant building.

However, this construction was not suitable for waterproof construction, and eventually, the water leakage system was not resolved.

The printing business may refuse to pay the full rent to the defendant, since the plaintiff cannot use and benefit from the building of this case, so long as the number of copies is generated as above due to the vulnerable type of business.

Therefore, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract on the ground of the Defendant’s breach of the repair obligation. The Defendant, along with the delivery of the instant building from the Plaintiff, is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Defendant is due to the Defendant’s breach of the repair obligation.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2014.05.20 2013가단9740

-창원지방법원진주지원 2020.04.22 2018가단38412

-부산지방법원 2015.06.09 2014가단228880

-서울남부지방법원 2015.12.10 2015나3377

-대구지방법원 2015.11.12 2015나4519