logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.02.08 2015가단118725
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2012, the Defendants sold Nos. 107 and 108 of the G building (the name of the building was changed to H building; hereinafter the same shall apply) to be newly constructed on the ground of Namyang-si Co., Ltd. and D (the number was changed to E and F) in Nam-si. At that time, the Defendants sold No. 109 of the instant commercial building from the said company.

B. On July 23, 2012, the Han Telecom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants on July 107 and 108 of the instant shopping district with respect to KRW 50,000,000 for each shop, monthly rent of KRW 2,50,000 for each shop, and the lease period of KRW 5,000 for each shop, determined two years after the ownership of each shop was transferred to the lessor, and KRW 5,000,000 for each lease deposit was paid after 7 days from the contract date, and the remainder of KRW 40,000 for each shop was paid after the contract date and the ownership of each shop was transferred to each of the above lessors, and the Defendants agreed to pay the down payment and the intermediate payment to each of the above landlords until the end of 201.

C. On May 16, 2013, the public co-ownership corporation completed the registration of preservation of ownership for the stores in the instant commercial building including the above stores, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of trust to the Korean Asset Trust Co., Ltd.

I, around June 19, 2013, completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant commercial building 109, and thereafter, prove that the Plaintiff would be revoked the lease agreement on the instant commercial building 109 on the ground that the Plaintiff would not accept the outstanding payment of the lease deposit with respect to the instant commercial building 109, on or around July 23, 2013.

arrow