(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.08.18 2017가단5169

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.08.18 2017가단5169

손해배상(기) 등

Text

1. As to KRW 45,00,000 and KRW 30,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45,00,00 from May 19, 2017 to August 18, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant for the lease deposit of approximately KRW 60,000,000 (a contract deposit of KRW 30,000 shall be paid at the time of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 30,000,000 shall be paid at the time of October 15, 2016) regarding the lease deposit of approximately 8,00,00 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) among the building on the ground of Seocheon-si and Seocheon-si (hereinafter “instant lease”) from October 15, 2016 to October 14, 2018.

B. Article 6 of the instant lease agreement provides, “Before a lessee pays the remainder to a lessor, a lessor shall redeem the down payment, and a lessee may waive the down payment and rescind this contract.” Article 7 provides, “If a lessee or lessee fails to fulfill the terms and conditions of this contract, the other party may demand in writing the person who has defaulted and rescind the contract. In such cases, the other party may respectively claim damages due to the cancellation of the contract against the other party, and the contract shall be deemed as the basis for compensation for damages, unless otherwise agreed.”

C. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant had been in progress with Nonparty D (E), including transfer of a building (this Court 2017Gahap100214), and accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to deliver the leased object of this case to the Plaintiff by the remainder date of the lease deposit and claim damages against the Defendant in the event of nonperformance of the contract.

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 30,000,000 to the date of the instant lease agreement, and since that time, the instant building was in a state of non-feasible, but the Plaintiff did not report the closure of the lease agreement, and thus was unable to use and benefit from the instant building.

E. The delivery of buildings mentioned in the above sub-paragraph.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.03.25 2018가단5146822

-서울남부지방법원 2017.05.11 2016가단259619

-의정부지방법원 2015.12.24 2015나8675

-인천지방법원 2020.07.08 2019가단251949

-부산지방법원 2017.01.24 2016가단18322