(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.04.30 2014가합3086

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) 광주지방법원순천지원 2015.04.30 2014가합3086

임대차보증금반환 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant cartel (hereinafter referred to as the “instant cartel”) from the Defendant, as the lease deposit amounting to KRW 200 million; (b) monthly renting KRW 10 million; and (c) from August 14, 2014 to August 13, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit to the Defendant around that time; and (d) operated the instant cartel (hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Fraudulent assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant said that the monthly sales of the instant franchise was KRW 30 million to KRW 60 million. However, while operating the instant franchise, the Plaintiff was unable to raise the sales of KRW 700,00 per day on August 2014 and KRW 4,839,00 per day from September 2014 to December 2014. As such, the Defendant deceptioned the Plaintiff on the monthly sales of the instant franchise. (2) The Defendant had been subject to a lawsuit seeking refund of the deposit for lease on the ground that the Defendant deceptioned the monthly sales from the former lessee of the instant franchise.

In addition, there were defects such as mycoa in some guest rooms in the instant telecom leased by the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the foregoing complaint and defect.

3) The Defendant’s failure to inform the Defendant of the monthly sales of the instant Moel constitutes fraud, and thus, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to conclude the instant lease agreement is revoked through the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million and damages for delay to the Plaintiff. (B) As to the fraud of monthly sales, the Defendant falsely notified the Plaintiff of the specific facts regarding the important matters regarding the deception of monthly sales in a manner that would be criticized in light of the duty of good faith.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.02.13 2014가합64380

-대구지방법원 2016.07.22 2014가단58792

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.04.29 2015가합102834

-서울서부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015나34646

-대전지방법원서산지원 2017.08.08 2016가단54843