logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2017.12.13 2017가단12073
약정손해배상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff leased a lease deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million (excluding value-added tax), and five years from March 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) to the Defendant, among KRW 615 square meters, KRW 405 square meters, KRW 58 square meters, among KRW 801 square meters, KRW 592 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si Co., Ltd.

The plaintiff and the defendant cannot terminate the contract of this case even within five years from the time of the contract of this case, and the contract was concluded to pay the other party the amount equivalent to the remaining rent from the rent for five years at the time of the contract of this case as the penalty for breach of contract (hereinafter "the contract of this case").

[Judgment of the court below] 1 and 2

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On April 20, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant lease contract will be terminated due to personal circumstances.

The defendant subleases the leased object without the plaintiff's consent.

Therefore, the Defendant violated the instant lease agreement. As such, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent for the remaining 58 months, excluding the rent for March through April 2, 2017, pursuant to the instant special agreement, from the rent for five years to April 2, 2017 (i.e., one million won x 58 months) and damages for delay.

B. As to the first argument of the Plaintiff, in light of the health care unit and the special agreement of this case, even if the contract of this case was terminated without any legal grounds for termination, it does not have the effect of termination. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. 2) Next, there is no evidence to conclude that the Plaintiff sublets the leased object after the conclusion of the instant lease contract (i.e., the transfer of some possession to a third party at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease contract), and even if so, it is so.

arrow