(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.06.10 2016가단50305

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 2016.06.10 2016가단50305

기타(금전)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2013, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to take over and operate the “E” restaurant on the second floor of the building D in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

Accordingly, on June 1, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant as premium, and concluded a lease agreement with C to lease the instant restaurant by setting the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.7 million, and the lease period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015, with the purport to succeed to the Defendant’s existing lease agreement.

B. From June 4, 2013, while operating the instant restaurant from around October 2015, the Plaintiff received notification from C to deliver the instant restaurant on December 31, 2015, on the ground that the lease term expires on the ground that the said restaurant was scheduled to be executed as a substitute construction due to the aging of the building, etc., and delivered the instant restaurant to C around the end of December 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant had the Plaintiff take over the instant restaurant, and guaranteed a minimum of five years for the operation period of the instant restaurant. As such, in principle, the portion corresponding to the remainder of the five years, excluding the actual business period, out of the premium paid by the Plaintiff, in accordance with the principle of fairness, should be returned to the Plaintiff.

B. As to whether the Defendant guaranteed at least five years to the Plaintiff as the operating period of the instant restaurant, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s testimony on the evidence No. 5 and witness F alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not reasonable without further review as to the remainder of the issue.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is not justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.11.02 2017가합9789

-창원지방법원진주지원 2016.11.03 2016가단4996

-서울남부지방법원 2015.07.23 2014가합14307

-부산지방법원 2016.01.29 2015가단36040

-광주지방법원 2017.07.18 2016가단516153