beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.16 2019가단15197

건물인도 등 청구의 소

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 June 20, 2018, C and the Plaintiff entered the date of preparation on May 17, 2018 in the lease agreement.

However, the plaintiff asserts that the date of preparation is June 20, 2018, and the defendant does not dispute it, and considering that the first day of the lease term and the receipt date of the fixed date on the lease agreement are all June 20, 2018, the date of preparation is recognized as June 20, 2018.

With respect to the instant office, a lease agreement was concluded stating that “The lease deposit: 8 million won, monthly rent: 500,000 won, the lease term: from June 20 to June 19, 2018; and the special agreement terms: the lessor (C) consents to the sublease contract of the lessee (Plaintiff).”

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On June 20, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant indicated “the portion to be leased” as “D part” in the instant sub-lease contract, but “area” as “38.28 square meters, which is the area of the instant office.”

Since the Plaintiff alleged that the entire office of this case was sub-leased and sought the delivery thereof, the object of sub-lease is recognized as the office of this case.

“Lease deposit: 4 million won, monthly rent: 300,000 won, and period of lease: The sub-lease contract was prepared on June 20, 2018 to June 19, 2019, and hereinafter “the sub-lease contract of this case” is called “the sub-lease contract of this case.”

(C) On March 14, 2019, the Plaintiff sent text messages to the Defendant to the effect that the sub-lease contract will be terminated as of March 19, 2019. 【The fact that there is no ground for dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties did not pay only once after the Plaintiff transferred the instant office to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff notified the termination of the contract on the grounds of overdue rent for at least three years and requested delivery. However, the Defendant did not comply with the request.

The defendant is remaining from the plaintiff.