(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.01.10 2015가단129813

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) 서울북부지방법원 2017.01.10 2015가단129813

권리금반환청구

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a lessee who operates the “E” on the first floor of the building located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant store”).

The Defendants agreed to enter into a new lease agreement with the non-party company, the transferee of the instant store, following the conclusion of the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the BGF test (hereinafter “non-party company”), but interfered with the collection of the Plaintiff’s premium by unilaterally denying the said agreement on June 11, 2015, destroying it, obstructing the conclusion of the lease contract, and presenting the conditions (five-year lease period is guaranteed to the lessee, even if the Defendants rejected it) that may not be accepted by finding the non-party company on April 8, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 50 million equivalent to the premium pursuant to Articles 10-3 and 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 13284).

B. The Defendants asserted that they obtained the ownership of the instant store and did not consent to the transfer and takeover contract between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty company.

Since the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's contract term can not guarantee five years of lease contract term, the contract term is not consistent, and there is no way to obstruct the plaintiff'

On the other hand, Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is not applicable since the business transfer contract with the non-party company was concluded before the amendment of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act on May 13, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendants are not obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the premium to the Plaintiff.

2. Facts of recognition and judgment

A. (1) On April 1, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with F to set the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million with respect to the instant store as KRW 2,00,000,000, the lease deposit amount of KRW 2,000,000,000 for a monthly rent of KRW 1,00,000,000, and

(2) The Defendants are the FF on February 24, 2015.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조의3

-상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조의4

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2017.04.26 2016가단29960

-전주지방법원 2017.04.12 2016나9400

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.29 2017가단230516

-대법원 1994. 9. 9. 선고 94다28598 판결

-대구지방법원 2017.4.6.선고 2016가합201818 판결