logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.17 2015가단101647
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants jointly share KRW 49,327,567 as well as the aforesaid amount from October 29, 2016 to February 13, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B operated “Ewa Holdings” in accordance with Article 605, 606, 701 to 709 of the Osan City D Building No. 606, and Defendant C leased the above 606 head office from Defendant B to run a Meke business shop.

B. Defendant C terminated the lease contract with the above 606 around June 30, 2014, but it was difficult to refund the deposit from the Defendant B due to the aggravation of the profit of the crowdfunding, and Defendant C demanded that Defendant B enter into a lease contract with the new lessee on the above 606 and changed the deposit received from the lessee. The Defendant B consented thereto.

C. However, since D building 605, 701 to 709, including the above 606, were provisionally seized by many creditors due to the aggravation of profits from crowdfunding business, the priority mortgage was set up not only in excess of the maximum debt amount of KRW 2.34,00,000 and KRW 890,000,000,000. Defendant B had no intent or ability to refund the lease deposit to the lessee at the expiration of the contract period due to the lack of the ability to repay the debt amount. Defendant B had no intention or ability to make the lessee conduct normal business even if the above 606 lease was made from time to time without paying the management expenses, and Defendant C was well aware of such circumstances.

Nevertheless, on December 2014, Defendant C reported the advertisement on the Internet website posted by Defendant C while investigating the advertisement, and the Plaintiff believed to the effect that “the amount of fine is fine for profits compared to the security deposit.” On December 19, 2014, Defendant C knew that the Plaintiff was unable to engage in a normal business even if the Plaintiff leased the above 606, but did not inform the Plaintiff of the fact that it was difficult to engage in a normal business.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6 million to Defendant C as the premium.

arrow