logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.08 2019가단5077190
임대차보증금
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 March 14, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement stipulating that the lease deposit is KRW 130 million, monthly rent of KRW 12,50,000,000 from August 10, 2018 to August 10, 2020 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 130,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 12,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 on the date of the lease deposit, as a special agreement.

B. The Plaintiff, a company running a liquor wholesale business, concluded the instant lease contract with the purpose of using the leased object of the instant lease as a liquor warehouse and a cargo parking lot for transportation of alcoholic beverages.

However, the width of the access road to the leased object was narrow when the cargo owned by the Plaintiff enters.

Accordingly, the leased object of this case was not used as the plaintiff's liquor warehouse and parking lot because the cargo vehicle owned by the plaintiff was not allowed to enter.

C. At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, other liquor wholesalers were leased from the Defendant to use the leased object as a liquor warehouse and parking lot, but the lessee was using freight cars allowing access to the said access road.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4 and purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the lease contract of this case is revoked

A. (1) The Plaintiff alleged the parties’ assertion (1) leased the instant leased object that the freight owned by the Plaintiff, because the access road is narrow so that it can not be used as a liquor warehouse and parking lot due to the narrow access road, for the above purpose. The mistake was the “misunderstanding of motive” as to the current status and use of the leased object, and the motive thereof was the content of the instant lease agreement.

arrow