logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.04.11 2017가단8986
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 September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the land C, D, and E (hereinafter “instant land”) and the above ground buildings from the Defendant as deposit money of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and KRW 120,000, and the lease period of KRW 120,000, and the Plaintiff was handed over and carried out the sale of automobile parts and the automobile maintenance business.

B. The Plaintiff established and used three containers (hereinafter “instant containers”) on the instant land for one’s own business without permission from the competent authorities. On February 13, 2017, the Defendant received an order from Gwangjuyang-si to remove the instant containers, which are illegal buildings, and requested the Plaintiff to remove the instant containers.

C. On July 24, 2017, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to deliver to the Defendant a written consent to land use and a certificate of seal impression so that the instant container can be legally used. However, the Defendant rejected the request.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 5 evidence, Eul 4 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a lessor of the land of this case who is obligated to maintain the leased object in the condition necessary for its use and profit-making while the lease contract remains in existence, and thus, the plaintiff, a lessee, is obligated to deliver a written consent to land use and a certificate of personal seal impression in the name of the defendant so that he can install

The Plaintiff suffered damages due to the Defendant’s failure to perform such obligations.

B. As to the subject matter of the instant lease agreement, there is not any evidence to acknowledge it solely on the basis of the statement of No. 1 and No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The container of this case is an illegal building established by the Plaintiff without obtaining permission from the competent authority. As seen earlier, the existence of an illegal building installed by the Plaintiff, a lessee, is sustained.

arrow