(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.05.08 2014가합5235

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.05.08 2014가합5235

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 29, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease approximately KRW 30,000 (hereinafter “instant store”) out of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the lease period from June 13, 2007 to June 12, 2008.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant renewed the contract by increasing the rent at the time of the expiration of the above lease term, and thereafter, the contract was renewed by increasing the deposit or the rent at each time when the lease term expires. As a result, on June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the deposit amount of KRW 120 million, monthly rent of KRW 5.6 million (excluding value-added tax), and June 12, 2014, respectively.

C. Meanwhile, between D and D on December 4, 2013, the term of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff entered into a transfer and acquisition agreement to transfer all business rights and facilities related to the instant store in the amount of KRW 230 million for premium (hereinafter “first transfer and acquisition agreement”).

However, the lease contract between D and the Defendant on the instant store was not entered into under the terms and conditions of the lease stipulated in the first transfer contract (a security deposit of KRW 120 million, monthly rent of KRW 5.7 million). As such, the first transfer contract was rescinded.

On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for transfer and acquisition to transfer all business rights and facilities related to the instant store in the amount of KRW 130 million for premium (hereinafter “second transfer and acquisition contract”) with ELS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ELS”). At that time, the Plaintiff received KRW 130 million for the said premium from ELS.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2, 3, and 6's statements (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion; and

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.07.20 2017가단116171

-수원지방법원 2015.09.03 2015나9377

-서울북부지방법원 2015.11.24 2014나7566

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.11.14 2017가단109368

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.14 2016가단5007725