logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.12.06 2016가단12231
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. The fact of recognition (the principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed the same);

A. On January 21, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D and D with regard to the general restaurant of 105.8 square meters (10 square meters in the certificate lease agreement No. 1; hereinafter “instant store”) of real estate listed in the attached Table, with regard to KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,400,000, and the term of lease from February 1, 2010 to January 31, 2013 (hereinafter “the first lease agreement”).

B. On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with E (F) who operated the restaurant in the instant store for the rights and facilities of the store in this case, and paid 120,000,000 won to E as premium under the said contract.

C. At the time when the Plaintiff entered into an initial lease agreement, the instant store was jointly owned by E and G, and its owner was successively changed to D on January 25, 2010, H, I, and H on December 27, 201, J on June 20, 2013, and Defendants (Defendant B2/3 shares, Defendant C1/3 shares) on June 10, 2014.

On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendants as to the instant store (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,900,000, and the term of lease from February 1, 2015 to January 29, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

E. On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff requested K, a real estate broker, to seek the lessee to acquire the instant store in KRW 80,000,000 for premium, KRW 20,000 for premium, KRW 20,000 for premium, and KRW 1,90,000 for monthly rent.

F. (1) On September 16, 2015, Defendant C notified the Plaintiff of the lapse of the instant lease agreement and that the Plaintiff did not wish to renew the lease agreement.

B. On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff requested Defendant C to provide that “The Plaintiff is seeking a new lessee for the purpose of receiving the premium, and the lessee is entering into a lease agreement if he/she intends to do so.”

Article 2.2

arrow