logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.14 2015가합200283
전세보증금반환 청구 등
Text

1. The light medical foundation of the Defendant Thai, Inc. and a medical corporation is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 210,000,000.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 7, 2012, the Plaintiff, among the commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant building”) newly constructed on the ground level C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “instant land”), was leased by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 300 million and the lease deposit amount of KRW 300 million on March 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). Of the above lease deposit, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million on December 18, 2012, KRW 10 million on February 27, 2013, KRW 30 million on March 13, 2013, KRW 200,000 on March 19, 2013, and KRW 300,000,000 on March 19, 2013, and KRW 300,000,000,000 on March 13, 201 and KRW 300,301,300,313.

B. When construction of the instant building was delayed over several months, on July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail demanding prompt implementation of the instant lease agreement to Defendant Tae Tae-tae Co., Ltd., and notwithstanding that, on July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff, who did not respond thereto, sent to the said Defendant a content-certified mail stating that the instant lease agreement was terminated on the ground of the above Defendant’s cause attributable to the said Defendant, and that the lease deposit was returned to the said Defendant on August 1, 2013 by sending a content-certified mail demanding the return of the lease deposit.

C. On May 9, 2014, Defendant Thai Co., Ltd and Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with the term of KRW 1.4 billion per month of lease deposit, KRW 4 million per month of rent, and the term of lease until February 11, 2019 with respect to the building in this case; Defendant Thai Co., Ltd. transferred the ownership of the land in this case and the name of the owner of the building in this case to Defendant B, but the construction cost of the construction in this case was borne by Defendant B, and upon completion of the building in this case, Defendant B immediately borrowed the above building from a financial institution as collateral and paid it to Defendant Thai Co., Ltd., and Defendant B Co., Ltd.

arrow