(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.06.24 2014나12202 (1)

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) 청주지방법원 2016.06.24 2014나12202 (1)

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The decision of the court of first instance, including each claim by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) added and expanded in the trial.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendants to lease the building (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) in the same warehouse as the attached list (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) with a lease deposit of KRW 10 million, KRW 600,000 per month, and KRW 2 years with a lease term fixed (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff received the instant warehouse from the Defendants, and around that day paid the said lease deposit of KRW 10 million to the Defendants (hereinafter “lease deposit”).

B. The Plaintiff came to know that it is necessary to change the use of the above building from the warehouse to the store in order to obtain a license for food manufacturing and processing business while installing the foundation powder in the warehouse of this case in order to operate the foundation powder plant in the warehouse of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to change the use of the building, and the Defendants agreed to change the use of the building at the Plaintiff’s expense. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants should bear necessary expenses for the change of use and caused disputes between them.

C. After that, Defendant C was placed at the entrance of stairs listed on the rooftop of the instant warehouse.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including the number of each branch; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim and the first preliminary claim

A. The Defendants asserted the Plaintiff’s primary claim that ① even though they were aware that the Plaintiff leased the instant warehouse for the purpose of using it, they did not interfere with the alteration of the use of the building, ② interfered with the use of rooftops, ③ prevent the use of the instant warehouse. The service of a duplicate of the main complaint of this case was made by the Defendants.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원충주지원 2014.10.02 2014가단20090

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2017.05.23 2017고정19

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.11 2015고단7208

-부산지방법원 2017.03.15 2017고단380

-부산지방법원 2017.05.12 2017고합108