logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.11.09 2017가단70078
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the second floor of 585 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant from the Defendant on the 3rd floor B in Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si (hereinafter “instant building”) with a lease deposit of KRW 25 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million, and the period of two years, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff operated a healthcare in the instant building, and the instant lease agreement was renewed, but it was terminated on November 29, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Before the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff arranged C as a new lessee to the Defendant, and the Defendant demanded a high amount of rent and deposit, thereby hindering the Plaintiff from collecting the premium, and filed the instant claim for damages against the Defendant.

B. According to Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, a lessor is liable to compensate for damages where a lessee interferes with receiving premiums by demanding rent and deposit from a person arranged by a lessee to become a new lessee in light of taxes, public charges, rents and deposits for surrounding commercial buildings, and other charges.

C. We examine whether C is a person who wishes to become a lessee of the instant building.

C testified to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would be the lessee of the instant building by paying KRW 70 million premium for the instant building.

On the other hand, on October 18, 2017, C paid KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff as premium, but C testified that the contract was not entered into due to the Plaintiff’s excessive demand and returned the money again from the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the court’s order to submit evidentiary materials on the payment and return of the said money, the Plaintiff did not submit any material despite the order to make a statement. The premium amounting to KRW 70 million.

arrow