(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.16 2017가단3236

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) 대구지방법원 2018.05.16 2017가단3236

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On April 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease a three-story shop “D building” with the content that the lease deposit is KRW 50 million, the lease term is 24 months from the date of delivery (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 2 million on the same day, and paid KRW 3 million on July 18, 2013, and thereafter purchased and installed equipment, fixtures, etc. equivalent to KRW 10 million on the said store.

On December 2015, the Defendant’s inside director E promised to compensate for the total down payment when the instant lease agreement problem occurs.

However, the Defendant had another person use the store, and the Plaintiff could not use the store by asserting that the lease contract of this case is null and void, so the instant lease contract was rescinded on July 25, 2016.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million, the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, the lease deposit of KRW 50,000,000,000,000 won, and the cost of living of KRW 572,40,000,000,000,000 for the Plaintiff’s family members, and the solatium 13,000,000,000.

B. Even if the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with F, F is obligated to pay damages to the Plaintiff, as it was transferred or delegated by the Defendant’s proxy or the Defendant’s authority to enter into the instant lease agreement.

2. Determination

A. Nos. 1-1, 2, and 4 of the evidence No. 1-1 cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity, and the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

In the event of the instant lease agreement, it is not sufficient to recognize that E promised to compensate for the total amount of the down payment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the entry of No. 4 and the witness G.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.03.28 2018나308571

-의정부지방법원 2019.08.29 2018나213461

-서울남부지방법원 2020.11.11 2019가단271399

-서울남부지방법원 2019.09.24 2017가단222621

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.04.29 2014가단203935