logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.30 2015가단176551
임대료 등
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 8,103,124 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from June 18, 2016 to November 30, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff leased the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B1f-1 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) from Sejong Development Co., Ltd. to sublet it to other persons.

B. From September 7, 1996, the Defendant moved the instant store from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff added f-2, and 3 together with the instant store and its attached thereto “D” in the name of “D.”

C. Around 200, the right to manage the C building, including the instant store, was exceeded from the Hro Development Corporation to the Seoul Facilities Management Corporation (hereinafter “Corporation”), and the Corporation prohibited sub-lease of the C building. On July 6, 2001, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract with the Corporation to conclude a lease contract with the Defendant on the instant store, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Defendant would be a formal tenant and the Defendant would be the Plaintiff, and the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff the deposit money and the rent for the instant store.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). The main contents of the instant contract are as follows.

The substantial store owner: The plaintiff and the defendant of Article 5 guarantee the continuity of the business in the store of this case and guarantee the plaintiff's status to be weak by making the defendant enter into a direct contract with the Corporation.

Article 6 The plaintiff shall provide all factual administrative cooperation so that the defendant can enter into a lease agreement on the store of this case in accordance with the schedule of the contract for the store of this case.

Article 7. The measure that the plaintiff had the defendant conclude the above lease agreement is reasonable to have the defendant acquire all the rights to the store of this case formally, and if externally, the plaintiff is the defendant.

arrow