logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.04.17 2014나105729
계약금반환 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) leased KRW 5,00,00 from November 26, 2013 to November 25, 2015 the deposit amount of KRW 5,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000; and (b) the down payment of KRW 1,000,000 from November 26, 2013 to November 26, 2015; (c) the remainder of KRW 4,00,00,000 on the date of the contract; (d) the purpose or structure of the instant commercial building cannot be altered without the Defendant’s consent; and (e) the Plaintiff may not immediately terminate the contract; and (e) the Plaintiff may not demand the Defendant to pay the down payment of KRW 0,00,00,00 to the Defendant on November 26, 2013.

B. On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement and received one key from the Defendant via a private individual D during the contract.

C. On November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a remodeling work contract with E to prepare for opening a restaurant in the instant commercial building, and thereafter, E had E perform remodeling work in the instant commercial building from that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to perform remodeling works on the instant commercial building at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and concluded a contract for remodeling works with E on November 15, 2013, and paid KRW 4,000,000 as down payment to E.

The plaintiff found that there was a defect in the water leakage and the entrance removal part in the commercial building of this case while conducting remodeling of the commercial building of this case via E, and on November 18, 2013, the expenses incurred by the plaintiff to the defendant instead of repairing the said defect.

arrow