logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.01 2014나2034230
손해배상등
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance against Defendant C, the part against Defendant C in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On the same day, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 9, 2005 in the name of the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) as the building owner and the ownership transfer registration was completed under the name of the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”).

However, the instant building had considerable difficulty in selling the building due to the exercise of lien by construction business operators and the dispute over rights with landowners.

B. From that point of view, Defendant C was delegated by I with the right to lease Nos. 102 and 103 of the 1st floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant store”) and leased the instant lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, KRW 1700,000,000 for monthly rent, and KRW 24 months for the term of lease around July 9, 2012. In the said lease agreement, the lessee was deemed to have legal dispute with the lien and the props of the relevant commercial building. The lessor entered into a special agreement that the lessee is not subject to any person’s sanctions for the commencement of business, and the said agreement should be null and void if any problem arises. In addition, Defendant C prepared to J a letter that “The deposit and KRW 60,000,000,000,000,000,000 won is liable.”

In addition, at the time, K, one of the joint representative directors of J, prepared a letter of performance to Defendant D, the representative director of J, stating that “I would recognize the relationship of lease as the owner of the building in this case, divide rents and premiums with the lien holders, and cooperate with the lien holders to prevent any interference with business.” The lien holder, “F, as the lien representative, must take measures to avoid interference or interference with anyone.”

Accordingly, Defendant D is responsible for the interior of the instant store at a reasonable cost.

arrow