(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.12.19 2018나1348

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) 서울동부지방법원 2018.12.19 2018나1348

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff leased part of the building in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “existing store”) located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul and operated a restaurant at the place, and on March 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the first floor (hereinafter “instant store”) of the building located in Seongdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant as deposit money of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 450,000, and from March 19, 2017 to 24 months (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff paid deposit amounting to KRW 5,00,000 and KRW 900,000 for two months and transferred the instant store to the Defendant, and then sought to renew the business registration for the location of the instant store to Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office on June 2017. However, the Plaintiff sought an answer from public officials of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office to the effect that “In order to renew the business registration due to the lack of classification between the store and the house, the change of the use of the said building is required” and demanded the Defendant to proceed with the procedure for changing the use of the said building.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant confirmed the possibility and cost of the change of the use of the above building and responded to the Plaintiff to the effect that “Although the type of business that can be operated at the instant store is confirmed before the contract was concluded, the Defendant examined the part of the change of use in consideration of the Plaintiff, but it is impossible to change the use due to the cost and overall circumstances.”

When the Plaintiff was unable to renew his business registration at the instant store, the Plaintiff delivered the instant store to the Defendant on July 2, 2017, and the Defendant returned KRW 4,272,000, which deducted the rents and public charges that were not paid until the date and time of the deposit, to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The cause of the action.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.01.11 2018가단511139

-서울남부지방법원 2019.07.25 2019나50616

-제주지방법원 2020.06.03 2019나13988

-청주지방법원 2020.04.17 2020가단20395

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.22 2014나35371