logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.07.13 2016가단223835
임대차보증금반환 등 청구의 소
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B on May 24, 2014 to operate a coffee sales store in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu, and the first floor shopping mall owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”). From around that time, Defendant C commenced the relevant shopping mall in the instant shopping mall.

B. On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the interior of the instant commercial building where Defendant C was in the process of construction, and agreed to operate a coffee store. On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement with Defendant C, a license agreement with Defendant C to enter into a franchise agreement, a license agreement with Defendant C, a telecommunication facility agreement, a management fee support, and a franchise deposit agreement. On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B with the amount of KRW 40,000,000 as to the instant commercial building, and the term of lease from July 24, 2014 to July 24, 2019.

C. On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of the lessee of the instant commercial building as well as the status of the contractor of the Defendant C’s franchise store, etc., and entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant B. The Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement, a royalties agreement, a machine facility agreement, a management fee support and a franchise deposit agreement with the Defendant C, and the Plaintiff operates a coffee store in the instant commercial building from that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 5, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On the ground of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s smelling shop is laid underground, and thus smelling, the customers who are seated on the toilets are moved to the string of the toilet, and the Paris lurgs are required to sit on the coffee or cream and make a refund from time to time, etc. are no longer available in the commercial building of this case.

However, the Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff of the installation of a septic tank in the underground of the instant commercial building.

arrow