(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.03 2014가단5063530

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.03 2014가단5063530

건물(점포)인도 및 손해배상

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 and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.

(1) On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff is the lessee of the instant store, including the lease deposit of KRW 150,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, and the lease term of KRW 1,50,000 from March 30, 2013 to March 29, 2015. On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff is the lessee of the instant store, such as registering its business under the Plaintiff’s name as the clothing wholesale retail business.

(2) The Plaintiff had the Defendant operate the instant store due to the lack of management ability to operate the instant store, thereby having much experience in clothing sales in the Dongdaemun-gu Commercial Building.

However, the defendant, despite the plaintiff's request for delivery, has refused to deliver the store of this case by illegally operating the store of this case and has committed unlawful acts such as embezzlement of sales proceeds.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 30 million, which is part of the damages arising from the delivery of the instant store and the embezzlement of the Defendant, as stated in the purport of the claim against the Defendant.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the lessor on March 19, 2013, setting the lease deposit of KRW 150,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, and the lease term of KRW 30,000 from March 30, 2013 to March 29, 2015, and the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the lessor on April 1, 2013 with the location of the instant store as the location of the place of business and completed the registration of the business of clothing wholesale retail in its name.

However, in light of the evidence No. 1 to No. 3, each statement of No. 1 to No. 10 on the sole basis of evidence No. 1 to No. 3, the Defendant illegally occupied the instant store as alleged by the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that the business operator embezzled or embezzled the sales proceeds, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

2. The Plaintiff’s application for change of the purport and cause of the claim on September 15, 2015 is lawful.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.11.21 2018나2019925

-서울고등법원 2017.10.24 2017나2014169

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.03.30 2017가단15415

-서울남부지방법원 2016.07.06 2015가단62788

-서울남부지방법원 2017.04.07 2016가합108657