logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.11.17 2016가단2426
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

On October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the first floor of the building C (hereinafter “instant store”) from the Defendant on a deposit of 40,000,000 won, monthly rent of 80,000, and period of 24 months. On October 14, 2012, the Plaintiff renewed the said lease by October 13, 2014, and turned the said lease to KRW 90,000,000 per month.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant maintained the lease relationship by October 13, 2015.

On August 9, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a premium agreement of KRW 30,00,000 with D to operate a house in the instant store on August 9, 2015.

On October 13, 2015, the defendant notified the plaintiff of his intention to refuse the renewal of the lease contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and plaintiff's assertion to the purport of the whole pleadings was made to the tenant E of the instant store with the premium of KRW 22,00,000 and the above store.

Upon receipt of the notice of refusal of renewal by the Defendant, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant of the idea of receiving the premium from a new lessee, and the Defendant asked that “The amount of KRW 40,000,000 per deposit, and KRW 1,200,000 per month.”

Accordingly, on August 9, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a premium contract with D in order to operate a dental house at the above store, and subsequently, caused a lease contract with D, but the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 30,000,000 for the premium from D on the wind that the Defendant refused to do so.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff entered into a premium contract with D with D to take over all equipment, such as signboards and internal facilities, but the Defendant incurred losses in the cost of removal of signboards and internal facilities, as the restoration to the original state due to the expiration of the instant lease contract, on the wind that the Defendant refused to enter into a lease contract with D.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 39,00,000 (=30,000,000 premium for premium not received from D, and the cost of removal of internal facilities KRW 900,00 for premium for premium not received from D).

Judgment

The evidence mentioned above as to the premium portion and the statement in Gap evidence No. 5 included the purport of the whole pleadings.

arrow