(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.06.25 2012가단64193

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) 서울동부지방법원 2014.06.25 2012가단64193

구상금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 75,524,040 as well as 20% per annum from November 22, 2012 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 23, 2002, the Defendant leased a building of 162,053 square meters and a building and a driving range on the ground owned by the Defendant to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter “the Defendant”), and C, with the Defendant’s consent on January 30, 2004, sublet the facilities falling under 10,070 square meters and FF driving range (hereinafter “instant driving range”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant sub-lease contract”). B.

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government has imposed indemnity on the Plaintiff from 2006 on the ground that part of the instant golf practice range facilities (such as the building in front of the golf practice range, the access stairs, etc.) are located in the maintenance of the city, and the Plaintiff has paid indemnity (hereinafter referred to as the “instant indemnity”) by 2012. The annual amount paid is as follows.

Each entry in the 2007 709,640 won, 2009 8,443, 790 won, 201 13,618,618,300 won, 15,040,200 won, 15,864,600 won, 146,280 won, 7,401,230 won (based on recognition) in 2006, and each entry in the evidence No. 1, 2, 3, 2008, 209, 201, 7,401,230 won in the absence of any dispute, A, 1, 2, and 3 evidence No. 3 (including additional numbers), the result of the inquiry into the head of Jung-gu, 2011, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff of the parties asserts that the compensation of this case is imposed on the defendant due to possession of the real estate owned by the defendant, and that the defendant is obligated to return it, and that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim for the following reasons.

(1) According to Article 10 of the sub-lease contract of this case, "property tax and aggregate land tax on the leased object shall be borne by the defendant, and taxes and public charges incurred during the management and operation of the sub-lease shall be borne by the sub-lessee." Thus, the compensation of this case constitutes public charges and public charges under the above provision, and thus, the plaintiff

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.05 2015가합525679

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.31 2016가단5265552

-청주지방법원 2017.03.02 2015가합1618

-창원지방법원 2018.08.16 2017가단8978

-대전고등법원 2016.06.03 2015나1374