(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.03.20 2018가단112434

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) 대구지방법원 2019.03.20 2018가단112434

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s damages amounting to KRW 22,515,500 and 5% per annum from May 10, 2018 to March 20, 2019.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff leased 33 square meters of the retail store of the first floor among the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the Seoul-gu (hereinafter “instant store”) by the period of lease on April 24, 2015. On April 25, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant regarding the instant store of the instant building of the instant case by setting the lease term as KRW 3 million from April 25, 2015 to April 25, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

Based on the above lease relationship, the Plaintiff, while occupying and using the instant store, engaged in retail business, such as clothes, with the trade name “D”.

B. The terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement stipulate that “at any time upon the expiration of the term” and “at any time, preferential negotiating rights shall be granted at the time of re-locating after repair.”

C. On February 13, 2018, the Defendant concluded a contract for acquisition and transfer of the right to transfer the instant store in KRW 55 million to E prior to the expiration of the instant lease agreement.

However, the plaintiff refused to enter into a new lease agreement with E, and thus the contract for the acquisition and transfer of the above rights was rescinded.

Appraiser F assessed the premium of the instant store as KRW 45,031,000 on April 25, 2018, which was the expiration date of the lease term under the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, appraiser F's appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the defendant refused to enter into a lease agreement with E that the defendant would become a new lessee arranged by the defendant without justifiable grounds, and the defendant obstructed the plaintiff from receiving the premium from the new lessee, and thus, the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is applicable.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.11.28 2018가단111417

-인천지방법원 2019.06.27 2016가단213007

-대법원 1994. 9. 9. 선고 94다28598 판결

-서울고등법원 2018.10.11 2018나2034870

-서울남부지방법원 2018.03.13 2017가단213405