logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.06.14 2015가단36418
임대료
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owns 1/2 shares of C and Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On October 30, 2013, the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with C to operate a hotel in the instant building. On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s share in the instant building were determined as KRW 300 million, monthly rent 10 million, and the period from October 30, 2013 to January 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On July 15, 2014, the Defendant agreed to terminate the agreement with C on the same trade.

Accordingly, when the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement with the Defendant on July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff returned 300 million won to the Defendant, but the amount of KRW 30 million out of which is offset by the amount of KRW 20 million on March 6, 2014, the Defendant borrowed from the Plaintiff, and the amount of KRW 10 million on April 4, 2014, respectively, and the remainder of KRW 270 million is KRW 10 million on July 21, 2014, and KRW 10 million on September 21, 2014, KRW 100 million on September 21, 2014, and KRW 70 million on October 21, 2014 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The Plaintiff returned the full amount of deposit to the Defendant by the end of November 2014 pursuant to the instant agreement.

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

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits

A. The gist of the defense was that the Plaintiff agreed not to file all claims against the Defendant when the instant agreement was concluded.

The instant lawsuit is unlawful, as it was filed against the above dispositive agreement.

B. According to the records in Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that "any civil or criminal objection against the termination of the instant lease agreement shall not be raised" at the time of the instant agreement.

However, the above agreement does not include a claim for restitution and a claim for damages following the termination of the instant lease agreement.

arrow