(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.02.12 2018가단528228

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) 광주지방법원 2020.02.12 2018가단528228

상가임대차보증금반환 등

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on January 17, 2015 with respect to one building listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant one building”) including the term “the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, the term of KRW 450,000,000,000, and the term of lease from February 9, 2015 to February 9, 2017; however, Plaintiff A entered into a lease agreement to return the remodeling construction cost at the time of termination of the lease in substitution for the deposit of KRW 20,000,000,000,000 again on January 11, 2017, and the term of lease from February 14, 2017 to February 13, 2020, replacing the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000.

B. On January 17, 2015, Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to return KRW 30 million, rent of KRW 800,000,000, and lease term from June 21, 2016 to June 20, 2021 with respect to the two buildings listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant and his/her owner (hereinafter “instant two buildings”), but the remodeling cost is replaced by KRW 30,000,000,000,000 from June 21, 201, and the lessee cannot claim the premium for facilities at the time of completion of the lease, and the lessor entered into a lease agreement to return KRW 30,00,000.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant agreed to terminate each of the above lease agreements with the defendant, as to the above one building on June 13, 2017, the defendant concluded each lease agreement with D on June 27, 2018, and the above two buildings on June 27, 2018, and the plaintiffs transferred the possession of each of the above buildings to D, the defendant is obligated to return each of the above lease deposits to the plaintiffs.

As to this, the defendant does not claim the rights of the plaintiffs with respect to the artificial park facilities established as a remodeling work at the time of each of the above lease agreements.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.02.12 2018가단528228

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.15 2014가합19399

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.09 2015가합577076

-인천지방법원부천지원 2014.05.15 2013가합9429

-서울서부지방법원 2017.04.13 2016나2974