(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.28 2014가단5331981

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 2016.01.28 2014가단5331981

사취금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was running the restaurant of “D” in the name of “D,” by leasing the two-story buildings of the machinery and the 2nd roof (hereinafter “instant building”) in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu Seoul.

B. On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the right to restaurant business in the instant building from the Defendant and paid KRW 100 million as premium to the Defendant on the same day (hereinafter “instant contract”), and paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant on the same day (hereinafter “instant contract”). The terms and conditions of the instant contract are as follows.

(1) The current status of the facility (2) When this lease is not made with the lessor, only the principal shall be repaid.

(3) The transferor is a condition that the transferor will remain both the consignee and the chair, and the remainder are all arranged.

(4) The period shall be five years, and rents shall be adjusted every two years through mutual consultation.

(5) No protocol of compromise shall be prepared.

6. The rent shall be KRW 100,000,00 and shall be KRW 500,000,00 for the monthly rent and KRW 7,000,00.

C. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff decided to change the premium to KRW 80 million under the instant contract between the Defendant and the Defendant, and paid the remainder to the Defendant on the same day.

On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a building lease agreement with E, the owner of the instant building, setting lease deposit of KRW 80 million and monthly rent of KRW 5.1 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that ① the defendant primarily did not receive a restaurant business report with respect to the second floor of the building of this case but the plaintiff could have operated the entire building of this case by deceiving the plaintiff or by mistake as if it was possible to operate the restaurant business.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.01.17 2015가단143443

-서울동부지방법원 2017.10.26 2016가단116481

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.12 2015고단969

-서울행정법원 2011. 07. 21. 선고 2010구합30918 판결

-대전지방법원 2019.09.19 2018가단213306