(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.12 2014가단5320332

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.12 2014가단5320332

건물

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is simultaneously paid KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. The plaintiff, on September 30, 1997, entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on the attached Form Nos. 1,2,3,4,1 of the attached Form No. 1,5 million won for the traditional tea house "C" (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"), which connects the 13th square meters of the attached Form No. 1,5 million won for the rental deposit, monthly rent, and the lease period from October 6, 1997. The plaintiff increased the monthly rent since it entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on Oct. 6, 2003, the rental deposit amount of KRW 1,50,000,000 for the 6th, October 6, 2003, the lease period of KRW 1,500,000 for the monthly rent, and the lease period of the 1,12 months from October 6, 2003 (hereinafter "the lease agreement of this case") and the defendant received the above real estate and operates a tea "C" as its own.

On July 15, 2014, the Plaintiff was planned to directly use the instant real estate to the Defendant, and thus, notified the intent to refuse to renew the lease agreement to the effect that the said real estate should be ordered upon the expiration of the lease term.

2. The instant lease agreement, based on the judgment on the claim for principal lawsuit, continues to exist for 17 years including the initial lease term, and is terminated after the lapse of October 5, 2014, which is the expiration date of the lease term, due to the Plaintiff’s notification of rejection of renewal on July 15, 2014. As such, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the defendant's defense and counterclaim

A. According to Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, a lessor should not interfere with the lessee’s receipt of premium from a person who intends to become a new lessee arranged by the lessee by demanding for the premium or giving and receiving the premium, etc., due to interference with the opportunity to collect premium, and if interfering with this, the lessor is liable to compensate for the loss.

The Defendant shall be given the opportunity to recover the premium from the new lessee in the course of the principal lawsuit of this case.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조의4

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2018.01.17 2016나51501

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.01.25 2018가단111890

-대법원 2019.07.04 2018다284226

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2021.03.11 2019가단68964

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2017. 11. 15. 선고 2016가단123813 판결