logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
춘천지방법원 2016.01.08 2015나94
부당이득금반환
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders the Defendant to pay below.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 4, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to separately lease the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 7,550,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the lease term of KRW 7,550,000 (excluding value-added tax), from January 24, 2011 to January 23, 2013, the Defendant and the second floor CA (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul with a special agreement on the burden of KRW 640,00 and public charges.

(hereinafter “Lease of this case”). (b)

The Plaintiff, while operating a hospital in the instant real estate, decided to close the hospital around June 2012, which was before the expiration of the lease term, and concluded settlement agreements between the Defendant and the Defendant on October 28, 2012, calculating the unpaid rent up to the time and the rental fee up to the expiration of the lease term of this case, and deducting the remainder from the lease deposit and receiving the remainder.

(hereinafter “The instant settlement agreement.” The main contents of the instant settlement agreement are to deduct lease deposit KRW 73,774,200 from KRW 100,00,00 to KRW 73,774,200 from KRW 15,00 from lease deposit, and from KRW 10,00,00 from KRW 10.

C. On October 28, 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 11,225,80,000, which is the balance after deducting the aforementioned amount from the Defendant, and drafted a receipt and a written confirmation to the Defendant that all of the instant lease deposit was received and liquidated.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate from the Defendant without installing special facilities except for some facilities such as surgery and replacement, and most of the former lessee used the interior, which the hospital operated. The Defendant leased the instant real estate to a third party on March 13, 2014 without performing the construction work to restore the said real estate to its original state.

E. The cost required for the Plaintiff to restore the operation, etc. to its original state is KRW 1,200,000.

【Ground for recognition” has no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 6, and .