(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.01.25 2016나9245 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2017.01.25 2016나9245

임차보증금

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

2.(a)

Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 16,209,864 and 9,750 among them.

Reasons

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the underlying facts, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraph 1, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B’s agent on August 2015 to transfer a deposit of KRW 18,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,650,000, and the period from October 5, 2015 to October 5, 2016 (hereinafter “the sub-lease contract in this case”), and the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants to transfer the deposit of KRW 18,00,000,000, and KRW 1,650,000,00 for each month under the agreement to pay the said deposit of KRW 18,00,00 to the Defendants on the fifth day of each month.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the Defendants promised to change the instant building permitted as a danran tavern into an entertainment tavern, but failed to perform it, and as such, it is impossible to operate the instant sub-lease due to the leakage of the toilet, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant sub-lease contract, and claimed the refund of KRW 18,000,000 and the rent of KRW 1,650,000 already paid.

As to this, the Defendants did not agree to change the instant building to an entertainment drinking house, and if they intend to cancel the instant sublease contract, they should be deducted from the deposit for lease deposit, since they are the unilateral reversal of the Plaintiff.

B. As to the claim against Defendant C, there is no dispute between Defendant B’s agent and the parties who are not the parties to the instant sub-lease contract, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff agreed to return the lease deposit of this case jointly with Defendant B, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is without merit.

C. The Defendant, at any time, engaged in the instant sub-lease contract for the cancellation or cancellation on the ground that the judgment on the claim against Defendant B was not performed with the permission for the entertainment tavern change.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.10.07 2015가단103170

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.29 2018가단5158542

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가단5027712

-인천지방법원 2017.02.24 2016가단235809

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.01.24 2017가단2379