logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.02.16 2014가단39162
건물명도
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. 50,000,000 won is refunded from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the deposit amount of KRW 50,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,600,000, and the lease period of KRW 2,60,000 from July 20, 2013 to July 19, 2015.

B. Thereafter, the Defendant is running a general restaurant business that sells literary cooking in the trade name of “C” at the store of this case.

C. The amount equivalent to the rent after July 19, 2015 pertaining to the instant store is KRW 2,700,000 per month when the deposit is 50,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-1 and appraiser D's fee appraisal result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment on the main claim

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the instant lease contract was terminated on July 19, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of KRW 50,000,000, and (2) to the Plaintiff from July 19, 2015 to the date of the completion of the delivery of the instant store or the date of loss of the Plaintiff’s ownership.

B. (1) The determination of the Defendant’s assertion is that Article 2(3) of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 12042, Aug. 13, 2013; hereinafter “former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”) does not apply as it constitutes a lease exceeding the guaranteed amount under the proviso to Article 2(1) of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act at the time the Defendant’s assertion was concluded. However, Article 2(1) proviso of the former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 12042, Aug. 13, 2013; hereinafter “former Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”) was newly established during the existence of the instant lease agreement.

arrow