logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.09.20 2017가단10376
임대차보증금
Text

The Defendant’s KRW 76,140,000 among the Plaintiff and KRW 36,140,000 among the Plaintiff, shall be from May 16, 2017, and KRW 10,000,00 among the Plaintiff.

Reasons

On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff leased a set of deposit money of 30,00,000, 30% of the rent revenue, and the period from November 15, 2015 to November 14, 2017 (the evidence No. 2 of the instant lease; hereinafter referred to as “the lease”), from the Defendant, the said deposit was paid to the Defendant on the same day.

On March 5, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the interior works equivalent to KRW 50,600,000 at the instant coffee shop, etc.

(A) The coffee shop, etc. leased by the Plaintiff is inside the gallonian, and only those who paid a prescribed admission fee to Dgallon. On August 5, 2016 without the Plaintiff, the Defendant was unable to operate the coffee shop, etc. of this case as soon as the Plaintiff was no longer able to operate the coffee shop, etc. of this case on August 5, 2016.

(Witness E) According to the fact that the repayment of deposit and the occurrence of liability for damages caused by the Defendant’s report on the closure of business, it is reasonable to view that it was impossible for the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the instant coffee shop, etc. under the lease contract by social norms.

Therefore, the instant lease contract was terminated on August 5, 2016 due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the lessor.

Accordingly, the defendant is liable for returning the lease deposit to the plaintiff and compensating the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16591, 16607, Jan. 27, 2006). The Plaintiff also claimed damages for delay on the lease deposit, but there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff delivered the coffee shop, etc. to the Defendant. Therefore, the part claiming damages for delay cannot be accepted.

As to the amount of damages, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have performed a interior work for the purpose of operating the coffee shop, etc. of this case, at least until the expiration of the term of lease.

arrow