logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.26 2015가단123389
손해배상(기)
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 November 21, 2009, the Defendant leased to C the front left-hand part of 134.375 square meters in front of 273.65 square meters in the retail store of the first floor of the fourth floor neighborhood living facilities of the fourth floor of reinforced concrete structure in Daegu (hereinafter “instant building”) as follows.

- Lease deposit: 20,000,000 - Rent: 1,100,000 per month; Term of lease: December 21, 2009 to December 20, 201

On December 30, 2011, the Defendant and C have renewed the above lease agreement as follows.

- Lease deposit: 30,000,000 - Rent: 1,000,000 per month - Term of lease: November 21, 2011 to December 20, 2013

C died in around 2012.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, the spouse of C, succeeded to the lessee’s status as to the instant building and confirmed it on November 1, 2012 between the Defendant and the Defendant.

The lease contract was prepared with the same contents as the lease deposit, rent, and lease term of the port stated in the port.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”) between C, the Defendant, and the Defendant, a successor to C, and the instant building:

On November 6, 2012, the Plaintiff registered its business with the trade name “E” and operated the Korean-style store business in the instant building (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). E

In December 2013, the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to extend the term of the instant lease agreement by one year and by December 20, 2014, and to raise the rent by 1,430,000 won per month.

F. Around the end of 2014, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff by December 20, 2014, which was the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, since the Defendant was scheduled to use the instant building by the Defendant’s children.

However, since December 20, 2014, the Plaintiff has continuously occupied and used the instant building.

G. Meanwhile, on July 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of the right to lease the instant building and the right to the instant restaurant facilities (facilities) with F.

arrow