logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.30 2018나68973
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant, among the parts pertaining to the counterclaims against the judgment of the court of first instance, who falls under the following:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed from the Defendant to restore the instant store to its original state at the time of termination of the lease contract (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”) and return the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000 (payment on September 27, 201), and the lease term of KRW 2 years from September 27, 2010 to September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to restore the instant store to its original state at the time of the termination of the lease contract, and thereafter, the lease contract in this case was extended by several implied renewals on September 26, 2018.

B. On December 29, 2017, when the Plaintiff operated a middle restaurant with the delivery of the instant store from the Defendant, the Plaintiff removed from the instant store on December 29, 2017, and on January 29, 2018, on January 29, 2018, the Plaintiff returned the key of the instant store to the Defendant by returning the key of the instant store upon the Defendant’s declaration of termination of the instant lease.

C. The Plaintiff paid only rent to the Defendant by December 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The summary of the argument: (a) although the Defendant, as a lessor, is obligated to maintain the building of this case for the use of Chinese restaurant, he violated the above obligation by placing serious waste, such as a sprinkage or string, at the entrance entrance of the store of this case; (b) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,00 as part of property and mental damage compensation due to the said nonperformance; and (c) the Plaintiff was established by the previous lessee before the lease of the store of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff is not obligated to restore to its original state.

arrow