logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.04.21 2016가합100983
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 4, 2010, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant with respect to the building on the land outside Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant building”) and four parcels (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The lease deposit was KRW 100 million, monthly rent was KRW 6 million, and the lease term was from October 29 to October 28, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On May 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that the instant lease contract will not be renewed.

On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiffs concluded a premium contract with E to lease the instant building and pay the Plaintiffs KRW 280,000 as premium, and requested the Defendant to conclude a lease agreement with E on the instant building.

C. After that, the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to extend the lease term of the building of this case (However, since there is a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as to whether the extended period is six months or one year, this decision is followed). On October 23, 2015, the defendant sent a content-certified mail demanding the plaintiffs to return the building of this case by April 28, 2016, while the extended lease term as above is six months to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs again concluded a premium contract with E on November 4, 2015, and requested the defendant to conclude a lease contract with E.

The Defendant refused to conclude a lease agreement with E on the ground that it would be expected to reconstruct the instant building, and the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking damages equivalent to the amount of the premium.

In October 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a premium contract with E again and requested the Defendant to enter into a lease contract with E on the 26th of the same month, and the Defendant again rejected the contract.

[Ground of recognition] A. A., 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

arrow