logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원김천지원 2014.02.14 2013가합150
건물인도 등
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B delivers the buildings listed in [Attachment 1] List, and pays 1,446,967 won to B. (1)

(b).

Reasons

A. The amount of security deposit agreed between C and the Defendant, who is the lessee, is KRW 30 million and KRW 1.9 million, and the monthly rent is KRW 1.9 million. This Act applies to the lease of a commercial building (referring to a building subject to business registration under Article 3(1)) (see Article 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act) by the amount of the said rent multiplied by 100,000,000,000 won (i.e., KRW 190,000 x 100/100), and the amount of security deposit calculated under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is KRW 32,00,000,000 if it exceeds the upper limit of the amount of security deposit for lease to be subject to the application of the Commercial Building Lease Lease Protection Act at the time.

Provided, That this shall not apply to lease the amount of security deposit exceeds that prescribed by Presidential Decree.

* "Amount guaranteed as determined by Presidential Decree" in the proviso to Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21988, Jan. 1, 2010) refers to the amount classified as follows:

The head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall make a report on the fact that he/she has made a report on the fact.

1. Seoul Special Metropolitan City: 260,000 won; 2. Overconcentration control region in the Seoul Metropolitan area under the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act (excluding Seoul Special Metropolitan City): 210,000 won;

3. Metropolitan City (excluding Gun area and Incheon Metropolitan City area): 160,000 won.

4. Other areas: 150,000 won is apparent. Accordingly, Defendant E, the lessee of the instant store, cannot assert the opposing power against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, in order to determine whether to succeed to the instant lease agreement, it is problematic whether there exists a separate agreement between the parties to succeed to the instant lease agreement and the Defendant C and D.

arrow