(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2016.06.23 2016가단526

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) 청주지방법원충주지원 2016.06.23 2016가단526

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff leased a six-story 461.08 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) from Defendant B, among the buildings located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, by setting the deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,600,000, and the period of September 15, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Defendant C mediated the instant lease agreement.

B. Article 5 of the instant lease agreement provides that “The lessor shall pay the lessor for the cost of construction of the floor and alteration of the purpose of use of Class 1 entertainment facilities after the removal of the wall, and the cost of other facilities and the cost of additional taxes and public charges (such as entertainment tax and property tax, etc.) incurred due to the alteration of Class 1 entertainment facilities shall be paid by the lessee.”

C. The instant building is divided into six rooms from 601 to 606. Each head office was a private teaching institute or office. Among them, 603, 604, and 605 among them was changed into entertainment taverns, and 601, and 602 were changed into entertainment taverns.

On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B a certificate of content that the instant lease agreement is terminated on the grounds of breach of the agreement, and the said certificate was served on Defendant B around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was that the instant lease agreement was concluded on the premise that the entire building (six floors) was changed to a Class I amusement facility, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant lease agreement on the ground that there was no problem in the aforementioned change of use. In fact, only some of the instant building (603, 604, and 605) changed to a amusement facility, and the change of use of the remainder was impossible.

(2) Therefore, the Plaintiff is on the ground of Defendant B’s breach of duty.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2017.01.11 2016나2285

-부산고등법원 2020.01.10 2019누22330

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2017.02.09 2015가합50391

-서울남부지방법원 2015.12.04 2014가합110618