logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.11.22 2017가합104457
목욕탕영업 허가권 변경
Text

1. The defendant is the business operator who changed the business report as stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact-finding 1) The Plaintiff and C jointly own the 4th floor and the 1st underground floor building in the Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon Metropolitan City (i.e., co-owned land 1/2) (i.e., co-owned land 1/2) on March 16, 2012, the Plaintiff leased a lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million to the Defendant, monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million, and the term of lease from March 16, 2012 to March 16, 2014.

(3) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the name of the proprietor of the instant bath in the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendant while entering into the said lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). However, upon the expiration of the lease term, the Plaintiff agreed to return the status of the business operator in the future of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant return agreement”).

4) The Defendant delivered the instant bath from the Plaintiff, and completed the alteration report on the status of the public bath business operator as shown in the separate sheet in the name of the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant business report”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap evidence 1, fact-finding with the head of Daejeon Metropolitan City, the fact-finding results with the head of Dong-gu, Daejeon Metropolitan City, the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. Since the instant lease agreement terminated on March 16, 2014, the period of validity expires, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure to succeed to the status of the business operator that changes the business operator to the Plaintiff according to the instant return agreement.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The Defendant asserted that the instant lease agreement was concluded and paid KRW 18 million to the Plaintiff, and thus, cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim until the Plaintiff was returned the said money. 2) The deposit received in real estate lease is a security for all the lessee’s obligations arising from the lease relationship, such as the rental fee and the liability for damages arising from the loss, damage, etc. of the object, and the amount equivalent to the secured obligation.

arrow