logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.22 2019가단209455
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 97,00,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 1, 2019 to January 22, 2020.

Reasons

1. Progress of this case

A. On September 8, 2016, the Defendants leased the instant building to the Plaintiff with a deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.9 million, and the lease period of KRW 1.9 million from October 1, 2016 to October 1, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “lease”), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 67 million to the F who operated the instant building for a franchise business in the instant building as premium. The Plaintiff concluded a new franchise agreement with E franchise business operators and operated the E store.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants have renewed the instant lease without a separate contract.

On December 19, 2018, the Plaintiff, from the head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, issued a corrective order to restore the site area of the instant building to its original state by January 21, 2019. On January 21, 2019, the Plaintiff received a corrective order to reinstate the site area of the instant building to its original state by January 21, 2019. On January 21, 2019, the Plaintiff received notification to correct the business area of the instant building to 8.2 square meters (hereinafter the instant portion without permission) without permission.

C. The Plaintiff reported the closure of business as of January 21, 2019, and returned the key to the instant building to Defendant B on January 23, 2019, and the head of Yangcheon-gu removed the marking of the instant building on February 15, 2019 on the ground that the correction for unauthorized extension was completed.

From April 19, 2019, the Defendants leased the instant building as refined land.

2. The assertion and judgment of the parties

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants caused damages to the Plaintiff due to the illegal act that the Defendants concealed and leased the illegal extension portion of the instant building, and thus, the Plaintiff revoked the instant lease agreement and paid to E head office for purchase, such as money paid to E head office, housework, etc., purchase cost, loss of premium payments, business loss incurred from closure, and lease deposit.

arrow