(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.17 2017가단8980

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 2017.07.17 2017가단8980

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 February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff and C leased (hereinafter “instant lease”) the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 209, 1603 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 100,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,80,000, and the lease period of KRW 1,80,000, and April 17, 2016.

B. At the time of the termination of the lease term of this case, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that the said lease was not the rent and the Defendant would convert the deposit into an increase in the deposit amount, and the Defendant decided to make a director after the expiration of the lease term on April 20, 2016.

On July 1, 2016, the Defendant applied for the order of lease registration and the lease order for the apartment of this case was terminated.

C. On June 7, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with a new lessee and the instant apartment in which the deposit for lease was KRW 620,000,000.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 2-6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On April 20, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would be a director of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was unable to seek a new lessee in advance, and requested the lessee to receive a lease deposit less than the market price after the lapse of two months from the above point of time in order to refund the lease deposit to the Defendant. The Plaintiff suffered damages, etc. that would be paid only to the lessee who was not paid the lease deposit and the lease deposit which was low, while the new lessee was not seeking a lease.

Since the Defendant intentionally committed an illegal act, such as receiving the order of registration of a leasehold, without intentionally representing the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the above damages.

B. The Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 1 is alone.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.09.28 2017가단2956

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.24 2016가단5208

-서울동부지방법원 2016.03.15 2015가단28174

-창원지방법원 2019.05.09 2019가합50550

-수원지방법원 2018.05.09 2017가단33885