logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.08 2018가단5041842
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,558,120 as well as 6% per annum from December 1, 2017 to January 30, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) that leases KRW 100,000,00 for lease deposit, between December 14, 201 and December 14, 201, the rent of KRW 10,000 for lease deposit, and KRW 10,000 for monthly rent of KRW 10,000 for lease from December 14, 201 to December 14, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease agreement”). As a special agreement, the Plaintiff agreed that the overdue rent and damage related to the lease shall be jointly borne by the lessee.

B. The Defendant et al., a joint lessee of the instant lease agreement, was prohibited from changing the type of business of the lessee (including altering the purpose of use), making a sub-lease, or making a sub-lease during the lease period on the same day, and promised to order the instant commercial building in violation

C. The Defendant, etc. paid KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff on the day of the lease agreement of this case, and operated the instant shopping mall or business as a partnership with the trade name of G in the instant shopping mall, and the F, delegated by the Defendant, performed its duties.

The instant lease contract was implicitly renewed even after the expiration of the contract term.

E. As between August 2016, Defendant et al. failed to pay the water supply and sewerage charges incurred in relation to the instant rain or business, and the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant shopping mall, inevitably paid KRW 10,558,120 (9,274,840 1,283,280) in lieu of Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

F. The Defendant, etc., starting from the point of absence of date to the end of November, 2017, did not delay the monthly rent in total at KRW 135,00,000.

G. In addition, when the defendant et al. receives the payment from the user even though he was engaged in the business as above in the instant commercial building, the service supplier is originally considered.

arrow