(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.23 2014가합588321

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 2016.03.23 2014가합588321

인도

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) deliver each real estate listed in the annex 1 list;

(b) above;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s promotion, etc. of the Plaintiff’s project for the development of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant large offices”)

A local public enterprise, the owner of which is a public enterprise, is a business that develops as commercial buildings by attracting the specialty points in each of the instant large rooms, which are idle spaces within the subway history, around June 2009 (hereinafter “instant business”).

(2) Around June 2009, the Plaintiff made a public notice of the bid for the instant business, and posted the public invitation guidelines and the draft of the lease contract on or around July 2009 on the Plaintiff’s website, and subsequently, selected the Defendant from among multiple enterprisers who responded to the bid.

B. On July 23, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on each of the instant large rooms (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term of 1,900,800,000 won for the lease deposit to the Defendant, 21,200,000 won for the monthly rent (including value added tax), and 5 years for the term of lease from July 23, 2009 to September 6, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

(2) On August 11, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a modified contract to somewhat adjust only the area of idle space within the history of each of the instant large rooms among the terms of the instant lease agreement. 2) The main contents of the instant lease agreement are as follows.

【General Conditions for Lease Agreements】 Paragraph 3 Types of Business and Operation of paragraph 3, the Defendant’s business type shall be the specialized point in the dam, and the brand shall be decided through consultation.

(2) The defendant shall not change the type of business, and the brand may be changed in consultation with the plaintiff.

Article 9 (2) In the event of a cause for refund of the rental deposit, the plaintiff shall refund the rental deposit at the request of the defendant after the completion of the order of "specialized store", and shall not pay interest on the rental deposit

Article 11 (Establishment and Establishment of Facilities)

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.11 2014가합40539

-서울서부지방법원 2014.07.18 2013가합9543

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.20 2013가합58373

-서울남부지방법원 2015.06.30 2014가합12127

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.21 2014나54198