(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.10.29 2014가합39824

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.10.29 2014가합39824

기타(금전)

Text

1. The plaintiffs' primary preliminary claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (i) The Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on September 12, 2013, stipulating that the part of the left part of the first floor (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) of the said building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from September 23, 2013 to April 30, 2021 is leased to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) at KRW 7.5 million a down payment and KRW 67.5 million a monthly rent, around that time, the Plaintiffs agreed to lease to the Defendant as co-owners of each 1/2 shares of the building C on September 23, 2013, and received each payment of KRW 67.5 million a balance on September 23, 2013.

At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the previous lessee was running restaurant business in the instant building, the building usage column of the contract was indicated as “cafeteria” and the Defendant also leased the building to operate restaurant business.

B. (1) Around September 23, 2013, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the former lessee cannot succeed to the report of the restaurant business on August 27, 2013 while he was delivered the instant building and performed the Human Rights Construction Business, and asked the competent authority whether he/she could report a new restaurant business on the instant building. However, the Defendant responded that the use of the instant building was a sales facility (retail store) and that he/she could not report a new restaurant business. However, the Defendant responded that the use of the instant building could not be changed.

D. On October 24, 2013, the Defendant sent a content-certified mail to the effect that: (a) the procedure to permit the change of the use of the instant building was followed; and (b) the lessee would compensate for the lease deposit and the cost of interior works, if it is impossible to permit the change of the use of the instant building; and (c) the Defendant sent a content-certified mail.

Secondly, the Plaintiff reported the general restaurant business of the instant building in its name, but was notified that it is impossible to accept it.

(c).

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2020.06.12 2017가단42745

-창원지방법원 2016.07.06 2016노656

-전주지방법원 2014.02.04 2013가단28911

-광주지방법원 2013.04.26 2012재고정13

-울산지방법원 2018.01.17 2016가단64496