(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.07.04 2017가단32691

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) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.07.04 2017가단32691

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On December 17, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, the Defendant’s wife, setting the lease agreement as KRW 5,000,000 on the lease deposit for the building located in Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant, and the monthly rent of KRW 300,000 (Advance payment of KRW 3,000,000), and operated a restaurant at a place.

B. Since April 2017, the Plaintiff was issued a corrective order and issued a disposition of suspension of business from Kimcheon-si on the ground that the Plaintiff did not report the change of the place of business by expanding the building of this case without permission.

C. However, at the time of entering into a lease agreement, the Plaintiff was not notified by the Defendant of the extension without permission of the instant building. The Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the total of KRW 29,486,200,000, which was paid for the daily profit from June 1, 2017 to April 30, 2018, as damages incurred by the discontinuance of business, and for the operation of the restaurant.

2. We examine the judgment: there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract without being notified of the fact that the Plaintiff had illegally extended the building area of this case; rather, considering the respective entries in subparagraphs 1 and 2 and the testimony of witnesses E, the Plaintiff requested C to extend the main space of the building of this case on November 10, 2016, prior to entering into the lease contract for the building of this case, at the time of paying KRW 500,000 as the down payment. Accordingly, the Defendant can recognize the completion of the extension construction through the Construction Business Operator F on December 1, 2016. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, by itself, was at risk of business suspension due to the unauthorized extension of the building area of this case, and concluded the lease contract for the building of this case.

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.11.29 2016가단213296

-서울행정법원 2018.10.26 2018구합3363

-인천지방법원 2018.02.01 2017나56301

-서울행정법원 2019.01.25 2018구합68438

-서울행정법원 2020.02.13 2019구합57626