(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.10.30 2018가단16840

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.10.30 2018가단16840

손해배상금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

On June 18, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit of KRW 22,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,700,000 (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the lease term of KRW 1,70,000 from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2012 (hereinafter the instant lease agreement) to operate the restaurant (hereinafter the instant lease agreement) of the first floor of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building (hereinafter the instant building), which is its owner.

The instant lease contract was implicitly renewed, and the term of lease was extended to June 30, 2018.

On November 23, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant building was bequeathed upon the death of the deceased C, and that on February 5, 2018, the Plaintiff refused to renew the instant lease agreement.

On February 20, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a premium contract with E to transfer the property value of the instant store to E as of June 30, 2018, such as business facilities, fixtures, business partners, etc., of the instant store, and requested the Defendant to enter into a new lease contract with E.

However, the defendant requested E to enter into a lease contract with a lease deposit of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000, and management expenses of KRW 300,000 per month, and it did not comply with the request of E to enter into a lease contract with E.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire argument as a whole, the plaintiff filed a claim for compensation for damages with the purport of the whole pleadings. Since the plaintiff did not enter into a lease contract with E and the plaintiff did not request the plaintiff to become a new lessee, it obstructed the plaintiff to pay the premium from E as it did not enter into a lease contract. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages arising from the above obstruction pursuant to Article 10-4 (1) 3 and (3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and that the defendant has the obligation to compensate the plaintiff for damages arising from the above obstruction. 16,29

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조의4 제1항 제3호

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.10.26 2016가단116481

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.06.27 2017가단228013

-서울동부지방법원 2020.11.19 2019가단103394

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.01.26 2017가단110658

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.03.22 2016가단77311