(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.17 2014가합18501

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.17 2014가합18501

부당이득금반환

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 July 3, 2012, the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and C entered into a contract for the transfer of the right to lease of a pharmacy (hereinafter “instant store”) and the Plaintiff Nos. 101 and 102 of the first floor of the ground building, such as Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant store”).

(2) The term of lease on July 2, 2012 to July 1, 2013 is set as KRW 3,500,000 and the monthly rent is set as KRW 3,50,00, and a pharmacy from around that time is set as the term of lease on the instant store (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”).

(2) On September 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of the right of lease of a pharmacy (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) with the purport that C acquires the right of lease of the instant pharmacy from the Plaintiff and shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 170,000 as premium, and received KRW 87,000,000 in total from C as premium on September 6, 2012.

3) In addition, from October 18, 2012, the Plaintiff newly started a pharmacy business from the Jung-gu Office of Government. (b) The dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted the cancellation of the instant transfer agreement with the Plaintiff around October 20, 2012, and eventually, around November 2012, the Seoul Central District Court guaranteed that the Plaintiff could operate the instant pharmacy for five years at the time of entering into the instant transfer agreement against the Plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2012Ga9864, and that the Plaintiff could operate the instant pharmacy for five years. Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return of KRW 87,00,000 for the premium already paid to the Plaintiff after cancelling the instant transfer agreement on the ground of deception or mistake. (c) The Plaintiff failed to operate the instant pharmacy at the instant store on the ground that C had already been operating the instant pharmacy, and the Plaintiff had already started to operate the instant pharmacy at the Plaintiff’s store in a separate city.

2. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay only monthly rent to D, a lessor, as the Plaintiff was unable to operate the instant pharmacy.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.01.23 2014나2041610

-수원지방법원안산지원 2014.10.23 2014가합20261

-전주지방법원 2019.08.22 2018가합717

-서울서부지방법원 2017.10.25 2017가단4402

-부산지방법원 2017.08.23 2016가합43349