(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.05.11 2017가단128511

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) 서울동부지방법원 2018.05.11 2017가단128511

위약금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from July 28, 2017 to May 11, 2018; and (c).

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sub-lease contract with the amount of KRW 615,272,727 of annual sales (net sales) in 15% contract on the 15% of the monthly net sales, or with the amount of KRW 6,003,00 of the monthly minimum security rent of KRW 6,00,00 of the monthly rental fee of KRW 6,00,00 (in addition), and the period of sub-lease of three years.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant sublease contract”). (b)

From January 2017 to May 2017, the Defendant failed to pay the monthly rent and the management expenses from February 2017 to May 2017. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the contract on June 7, 2017 pursuant to Article 16(3) of the sub-lease agreement (if the sub-lessee has failed to pay rent more than twice, the sub-lessee may terminate the contract by giving written notice of termination to the sub-lessee, specifying the reasons).

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The party's assertion and judgment as to it

A. The Plaintiff asserts that pursuant to Article 36(1) of the instant sub-lease contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent equivalent to the remainder of the contract term from June 8, 2017 to April 11, 2019, equivalent to the remainder of the contract term, as penalty, from June 8, 2017 to April 11, 2019.

The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the agreement on penalty under Article 36(1) of the instant contract does not separately claim unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the time of termination to the time when the Defendant transferred the leased building, and that it is an agreement on unjust enrichment and the amount of damages as a whole after the termination.

As to this, the defendant (1) is the defendant et al. who did not intend to do so at all, and the sub-lease contract of this case is later a sign sign for the business owners such as the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.22 2019나50498

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.5.22. 선고 2019나50498 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2018.08.14 2018가단8078

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.11.29 2017가단9800

-의정부지방법원 2015.10.30 2015가합2321