logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.02.23 2016가단52718
임대차보증금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, and 3-2, and there is no counter-proof.

On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B to lease the entire underground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the real estate listed in the attached list owned by Defendant B, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, and the lease term of KRW 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,000,000 to Defendant B, respectively, and KRW 16,600,00 on January 7, 2014.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff operated a entertainment restaurant in the instant real estate, and Nonparty D (hereinafter “the deceased”).

The Defendants, with the knowledge that the Plaintiff was a lessee of the instant real estate as this employee, had been in possession of the instant real estate. However, Defendant C twice leased the instant real estate without the Plaintiff’s consent, and Defendant C used a variety of houses equivalent to KRW 20,000,000, which was established by the Plaintiff in the instant real estate to operate an entertainment restaurant in the instant real estate.

Since the instant lease contract was terminated due to Defendant B’s double lease contract or nonperformance of delivery on the instant real estate, or was terminated upon the expiration of the term of the lease contract, Defendant B is obligated to return KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

In addition, the Defendants conspired to commit a double leasing of the instant real estate without the Plaintiff’s consent, thereby causing damages equivalent to KRW 20,000,000 for damages or facility costs, which prevents the Plaintiff from receiving premiums in the amount of KRW 30,000,000.

arrow