logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.21 2017나78278
양수금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. (1) On December 6, 2010, the following facts: (a) the process of concluding the instant lease agreement and the sub-lease agreement; (b) the Plaintiff operated a restaurant in the name of Nonparty C, the owner of the instant lease agreement, with the agreement to lease the first floor store among D neighborhood living facilities located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant store”); (c) KRW 20 million; (d) monthly rent KRW 2.1 million; and (e) the lease period, from December 25, 2010 to December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Nonparty C, the owner of the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (e) at the said shop, I.g., “I”.

② Around October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sublease the instant store to the Defendant with the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million, and the sublease period from November 1, 2012 to October 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sublease contract”), and the said contract is the lessee’s liability for value-added tax, income tax, etc. arising from the business.”

③ From November 1, 2012, the Defendant, the former lessee, started operating the restaurant in the name of “E” at the instant store. The Defendant, without registering his own name, changed only the trade name in the Plaintiff’s business registration, and operated the said restaurant by using the bank account in the Plaintiff’s name.

(2) On March 15, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not pay the rent and value-added tax based on the instant sub-lease contract, and lost the Defendant in filing a lawsuit claiming the name of the building (this Court Order 2013Da204962) against the Defendant. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this, filed an appeal under this Court Order 2014Na6098.

(2) In order to recover the premium of the instant store, the Plaintiff introduced Nonparty F to the lessor C as a new lessee. On April 24, 2015, F entered into a lease agreement on the instant store with C, but the Defendant.

arrow