(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.05.20 2019나15250

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) 제주지방법원 2020.05.20 2019나15250

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. According to the expansion of the purport of the claim by this court, the defendant 6,133.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease management consignment agreement with the Defendant and C Building D.

The defendant paid 8% annual rent to the plaintiff.

B. Lease proceeds that the Defendant failed to pay by May 30, 2019 are KRW 13,721,237; and lease proceeds that the Defendant failed to pay from June 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 are KRW 6,13,572.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from July 9, 2019 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from July 9, 2019 to the day of complete payment, as well as 6,133,572 won extended the purport of the claim by this court, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from April 1, 2020 to the day following the delivery of the application for extension of the claim of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not pay rent of 8% per annum due to the prohibition of Jeju Tourism, hotel supply excess, increase in personnel expenses, etc. by the Government of China following the placement of POs, and the other clients renounced the rent that was not paid and adjusted the rent to 3.5% per annum. Considering the change of circumstances after the contract, the balance with other clients, etc., the Plaintiff’s rent should also be reasonably adjusted. 2) The reasons asserted by the Defendant alone cannot be said to have changed to the extent that the content of the contract would be modified in a trial procedure, not in the rehabilitation procedure.

3. Conclusion, the defendant's appeal cannot be accepted, and the plaintiff's claim extended in this court is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2020.05.20 2019나15915

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.11 2015가합9795

-부산지방법원서부지원 2020.07.02 2020가단101339

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.06.25 2019가단206819

-대전지방법원 2020.01.09 2019가단15516