(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.11.30 2016가단11844

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.11.30 2016가단11844

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 12,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from January 8, 2016 to November 30, 2017.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 27, 2015, C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on delivery of the leased building of this case to the Defendant scheduled to operate the indoor packaging terminal (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) without a deposit for lease with respect to the leased building of 50,000 won per month from April 27, 2015 to April 27, 2018. However, C entered the lease agreement on delivery of the leased building of this case to the Defendant scheduled to operate the indoor packaging terminal (hereinafter “the lease agreement”). However, the lessee’s name appears to be a business operator of the Plaintiff (a restaurant operated by C”) who is his/her assistant, in the leased building of this case at its expense, without demanding a separate premium to the Defendant when the three-year lease period expires after using the leased building during the lease period (hereinafter “the lease agreement”).

(B) The Defendant appears not to have raised the issue of the Plaintiff’s standing as a party in this case, while recognizing that C is a substantial party. Accordingly, the Defendant does not separate between C and the Plaintiff and indicated only as “Plaintiff” in the match.

Accordingly, on April 27, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a restaurant remodeling contract with G operating F during the construction period from April 27, 2015 to May 20, 2015, and the construction cost of KRW 14,000,000 (However, the value-added tax separate) and carried out the interior construction of the instant leased building.

C. However, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff lower the floor height during the course of performing artificial test construction on the leased building of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was required to further lower the floor height than the originally scheduled, but the Defendant required to lower the floor height.

In addition, in the case of the second floor toilet among the leased buildings of this case, the defendant is lower than the originally scheduled floor and installed a boiler on the toilet floor.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.18 2017가단5236414

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.08.28 2014가합9341

-서울서부지방법원 2019.05.24 2019가단204237

-창원지방법원진주지원 2020.03.24 2019가단30415