logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.06.12 2013가단67007
임대차보증금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 12, 2010, the Geumhae General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Sea Construction”) completed the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of chonsegwon”) from March 11, 2010 to March 10, 201, with respect to the building on the ground (the 300,000,000 won and the 9th floor above the ground level; hereinafter “instant building”) owned jointly by the Defendant for the land (the 2nd to the 9th floor above the ground level; hereinafter “instant building”) other than Busan Special Metropolitan City Maritime Construction Co., Ltd. and the Defendant for the land (the hereinafter “instant land”).

B. C completed the registration of the transfer of chonsegwon on September 17, 2010, on the ground that the instant building purchased the right to lease on a deposit basis from the Gold Sea Comprehensive Construction.

C. On November 30, 2010, 13 persons, including the Plaintiff, completed the registration of chonsegwon transfer on the ground that C purchased the instant chonsegwon on November 30, 201.

In a lawsuit against D, the owner of the instant land, seeking the removal of the instant building and the transfer of the instant land against D, the owner of the instant land, etc., the ruling of mining development and the Defendant, which ordered the removal of the instant building and the transfer of the instant land, became final and conclusive around June 29, 201.

E. Meanwhile, around June 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the mining development and the lease deposit of KRW 30,000,00 (hereinafter “the lease deposit”). At around that time, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit to the mining development and operated the restaurant at the same time after receiving delivery of the above building from the mining development. On November 2010, the Plaintiff suspended the operation of the said restaurant due to the reasons attributable to the mining development side.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 7 evidence (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

arrow