logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.04.14 2016가단28342
건물인도 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff owned KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent, KRW 1,200,000, and the lease period from May 15, 2016 to May 14, 2018, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the deposit and the monthly rent to the Plaintiff and began restaurant business by receiving delivery of the instant store from the Plaintiff.

B. However, due to the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the lessee of the instant store, the Defendant failed to obtain a business license for the restaurant, and due to this, suspended the business at least seven days after the commencement of the business.

C. On May 25, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the lease agreement on the grounds that the Plaintiff is unable to conduct business at the instant store, and the Plaintiff accepted such notification and returned the deposit and monthly rent of KRW 11.2 million to the Defendant on June 13, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the delivery has not been performed since all the houses for restaurant business are located at the present store of this case. The defendant asserts that all the houses owned by the defendant were removed from the store of this case, and that the remaining houses still existed from the time when the defendant leased the store of this case, and that delivery has already been completed since they were not owned by the defendant.

B. In full view of Gap evidence No. 2, testimony of witness F, results of the on-site inspection of this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the store of this case was kept with a house for restaurant business as of the closing date of the pleadings of this case, such as air conditioners, gas bags, air conditioners, boomed rice, chairs, and misunderstanding. However, the above house was kept in the store of this case prior to the lease of the store of this case by the defendant. In particular, the house was set up in the store of this case.

arrow