(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.08.10 2016가단242528

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 2017.08.10 2016가단242528

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's cause of action is as follows.

The Plaintiff leased from the Defendant the four rooms of the 29th, 30, 31, and 32 of the 15th and the 15th and the 15th and the 15th and the 32th and the 15th and the 15th and the 32th and the 2th to the 2016th and August 2016.

On the 15th floor of the above building, there was a high-quality conference room (hereinafter “instant conference room”). However, during the contract period, the Plaintiff leased the above 4 rooms on the condition that the instant conference room was used within the limit of 5 hours per month, and the Plaintiff leased the said 4 rooms for the main purpose of receiving consulting services. As such, the Plaintiff’s use of the instant conference room was necessarily accompanied.

However, the Defendant leased the instant conference room to a third party in violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, thereby resulting in the Plaintiff’s failure to use the conference room and resulting in the loss that is bound to cancel the entire meeting of the business as scheduled in the conference room, and the lease contract was terminated on June 2016 and the place of business was relocated.

In the event of nonperformance of the Defendant’s contractual obligation, the Plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the expenses incurred in the process of moving the place of business in the event of the waiver of the business foundation formed over the last two years, and the loss incurred in the process of moving the place of business in the city. As such, the Plaintiff is entitled to seek damages of KRW 100,000,000 first due to partial claims among the total amount of damages as above.

2. First of all, with regard to whether the Plaintiff leased the four houses as alleged by the Plaintiff, according to each lease agreement (No. 3-1-4) on the four houses of this case, the Plaintiff is deemed to have leased not only four houses but only one houses (No. 32 houses).

Gap evidence 3-4.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2016. 08. 11. 선고 2016구합55667 판결

-창원지방법원 2015.10.15 2014가단25705

-부산지방법원 2015.05.29 2015노883

-수원지방법원 2017.08.18 2017고단3490

-인천지방법원 2019.06.14 2018나63139