logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.17 2015가단121919
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant shall receive 100,000,000 won from the plaintiff, and at the same time, shall be the building listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the building listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant store”) as KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 3,135,00, and the lease term from June 27, 2014 to June 26, 2015, with the agreement between the parties to the instant lease agreement. The instant lease agreement was terminated as of June 26, 2015, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.

(On the other hand, in each preparatory document submitted to this court, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant intentionally caused enormous damages to the plaintiff while operating a restaurant at the store of this case, and that the plaintiff should compensate for the damages because the plaintiff intentionally damaged the rooftop exchange organ and re-established it. However, if the court ordered the claim for damages, it did not take any measure, so the decision on the defendant's assertion on February 2.

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the plaintiff shall refund 100 million won to the defendant upon the termination of the lease contract of this case, and since the defendant's obligation to deliver the deposit and the plaintiff's obligation to return the deposit are concurrently performed, the defendant's argument to return the deposit is with merit.

B. According to the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant: (a) determined the premium for the instant store as KRW 70 million between the new lessee and the new lessee; (b) concluded a premium transfer agreement with the Plaintiff; and (c) the Plaintiff refused to conclude a lease agreement with the new lessee; (d) caused considerable damages to the Defendant as the Plaintiff refused to conclude the lease agreement with the new lessee; and (e) until the Plaintiff paid compensation for the said damages.

arrow