(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.12.21 2017나22780

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) 울산지방법원 2017.12.21 2017나22780

임대보증금반환 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On March 19, 2004, the Plaintiff transferred G business rights, etc. operated by the Plaintiff to the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) for KRW 400 million, and thereafter lent KRW 285 million to F as additional operational funds. As such, the Plaintiff had a total of KRW 685 million loan claim against F.

F, upon taking over the defendant operating a golf driving range, proposed that the plaintiff be deemed to operate the restaurant of the golf driving range at the time of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D, the representative director of the defendant and F, with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 200,000,000,000 for some 313.68 square meters of the building in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan Metropolitan City, with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 200,000,000,000 and KRW 60,000 for some 60,000 of the above building on May 10, 2006 (hereinafter "the lease agreement in this case"), and each of the above lease deposit was substituted by the above loan claim against the plaintiff F.

The plaintiff was a restaurant in the above building and closed the building and delivered the building to the defendant, but the defendant returned only 200 million won out of the lease deposit in 2009 and did not return the remaining KRW 150 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to refund the remaining lease deposit to the plaintiff KRW 150 million.

B. H, I, and J (hereinafter “H”) acquired the Defendant from F on July 20, 2010, and around that time, agreed to return the Plaintiff’s lease deposit KRW 150 million upon the normalization of the operation of a golf driving range.

C. Preliminaryly, if the validity of the instant lease agreement is not recognized, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 150 million with the loan, or the Defendant’s representative director D caused damages to the Plaintiff by committing a tort. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money in compensation for damages to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination:

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.04.05 2016가단116562

-서울고등법원 2018.11.16 2017나2053638

-제주지방법원 2015.04.10 2014가단2821

-대구고등법원 2020.07.23 2019나25760

-서울북부지방법원 2019.07.10 2018가단120220