logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.10.20 2016나305455
부당이득금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the first agreement”) with respect to the second floor of the building on both land D and E (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”), setting the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 600,000 (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply), from January 10, 2012 to January 9, 2015, and leased the instant building from C.

B. On January 24, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer of 1/2 shares was completed for each of the following transactions in the Defendant and F. As to the instant building.

On January 28, 2013, the Defendant and F determined the lease term as to the second floor of the building in question from January 28, 2013 to January 9, 2015, and the lease deposit and rent were the same as that of the first contract (hereinafter “second contract”).

C. On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and F to the term of January 9, 2017 (hereinafter “third contract”) with regard to the instant building, including KRW 30 million, KRW 1 million per month, and the term of lease from January 10, 2015 to January 9, 2017.

The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the sum of KRW 12 million (=one million x 12 months) from January 2015 to December 2015, 2015, according to the contract under Article 3.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s third contract was concluded by the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to demand renewal of the contract, its substance is not a re-contract but a renewal of the contract. The Defendant increased the rent from KRW 600,000 per month to KRW 1 million upon renewal of the lease contract as above. This is against Article 11(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”) and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Therefore, the defendant.

arrow