beta
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.06.24 2014가단27016

건물명도

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 April 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 3,98,00 for the instant apartment, KRW 57,950 for monthly rent, and KRW 57,950 for the lease period from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and issued the said apartment to the Defendant.

B. Article 10(1)1 and 7 of the General Terms and Conditions of the instant lease agreement provides that a lessee may terminate the instant lease agreement in cases where a lessee has leased a rental house by fraud or other improper means, or where a lessee has owned another house during the lease period of a publicly constructed rental house.

C. On June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff, as the head of the household, resided in B and the apartment of this case, who is the Plaintiff’s father and his household member, and B transferred to Busan Northern-gu C, 313 Dong 1004 (hereinafter “instant separate apartment”), and became the owner of the apartment of this case’s domicile on the same day, and completed the marriage report with D on June 11, 2013.

On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground that B owned the instant separate apartment.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. First of all, determination as to whether the termination right under the instant lease agreement arises, the Plaintiff’s apartment constitutes a national housing, etc. under Article 4(2) of the Rules on Housing Supply, which constitutes a national housing, etc., and this constitutes a supply to the head of a household, the head of a household, and the members of a homeless household, who are members of the household, who do not own a house, as defined in Article 2 subparag. 9 of the said Rules. Since the Defendant’s member acquired the ownership of the instant separate apartment, it constitutes a case where a rental house was leased by fraud or other improper means under the instant lease agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff

However, the plaintiff around April 3, 2012.