logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.11.25 2014가단17168
임대료 등
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 54,645,250 and a rate of KRW 20% per annum from April 22, 2014 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 1, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) on October 1, 2012, the fourth 402 floor of the building C in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, the Plaintiff leased (excluding value-added tax) to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 10 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 5.7 million (excluding value-added tax); and (c) the lease term from October 1, 2012 to September 30, 2013.

(hereinafter “the lease of this case”). The lease of this case was implicitly renewed thereafter, and terminated on March 31, 2014, and the Defendant delivered the leased object to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2014.

B. From November 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, the Defendant failed to pay KRW 49,300,000 for monthly rent from November 31, 2014, and on March 31, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 5,345,250 as management expenses as of March 31, 2014.

C. On January 21, 2014, the Defendant prepared a letter of promise to deliver the instant leased object to the Plaintiff without paying the monthly rent (including value-added tax) by March 31, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1) above, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 54,645,250,000,000, including the total of KRW 49,330,000,000,000 for the unpaid month of the lease of this case and the total of KRW 54,645,250, and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 22, 2014 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant, at the time of the instant lease agreement, promised to divide the Plaintiff into 1/2 and 1/2 of the Plaintiff and the Defendant to receive the premium later while operating the sama shop in the instant lease object. Since the Plaintiff denied the agreement to distribute the premium and obstructed the Defendant’s transfer of the sama shop to a third party, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay monthly rent, etc. under the instant lease to the Plaintiff.

arrow