(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.05.30 2016가단59234

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 2017.05.30 2016가단59234

임대차보증금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On May 22, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) leased a commercial building of the first floor C 1 in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant with a lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 700,000; and (b) with a contract term of two years; (c) operated the instant building as D cafeteria; and (d) the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed until May 22, 2016.

B. The instant lease agreement was terminated on May 22, 2016 by the Defendant’s notice of termination.

C. According to Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the Defendant, upon the termination of the instant lease agreement, should protect the opportunity to recover the Plaintiff’s premium pursuant to the provision of Article 10-4, but refused to enter into a lease agreement with a person who intends to become a new lessee on the Plaintiff’s recommendation, and thus, the Plaintiff was lost the opportunity to do so. The Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount stated in the Plaintiff’s aggregate of KRW 68,000 for premiums and KRW 20,000 for lease deposits.

2. First of all, determination: (a) in light of the facts stated in the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to acknowledge that the above evidence alone interferes with the Plaintiff’s opportunity to recover the premium guaranteed by the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, even in light of the legal principles, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant interfered with the Plaintiff’s opportunity to recover the premium; and (b) in relation to the assertion, according to the description in the evidence No. 2, the Defendant can only recognize the fact that the Plaintiff returned the deposit KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff on March 15, 2017. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is reasonable.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.03.08 2016가단87479

-대구지방법원 2017.4.6.선고 2016가합201818 판결

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.01.15 2019가단2430

-수원지방법원 2021.02.16 2019나76948

-서울북부지방법원 2019.05.02 2017가합23091