logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2017.11.28 2017가단53441
임대차보증금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Facts of recognition

C On October 22, 2015, for an entertainment drinking house business, the Defendant leased a deposit of KRW 55,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000 from the Defendant for an entertainment drinking house business. Around that time, the Defendant paid the said deposit to the Defendant.

C On October 29, 2015, with the consent of the defendant, the tenant was re-established a lease agreement with the E, an employee of the entertainment tavern.

C around July 2016, if the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff provided the instant club as security and agreed to transfer the name of the business operator to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff accepted this and lent KRW 100 million to C on July 27, 2016.

C On July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to change the name of the tenant of the instant store to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff accepted the request.

C obtained the identification card and seal from the Plaintiff, and then prepared a lease contract with the Defendant to use it to the Plaintiff with respect to the instant store, and then delivered the said contract to the Plaintiff.

Since then, upon C’s request, the Defendant prepared a lease agreement in which the name of the tenant of the instant store is F.

G on November 28, 2016, leased the instant store from the Defendant, and currently occupies it.

(Reasons for Recognition) Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 through 7, Eul evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), witness H and C's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

On July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant store.

However, the defendant later leased the above store to a third party and delivered the above store to him, thereby making it impossible for the plaintiff to perform his obligations under the lease contract.

The plaintiff cancelled the lease contract for the store of this case on the grounds of the defendant's default through the service of the complaint of this case.

arrow