logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.01.11 2016가단20024
건물명도 등
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) from 11,900,000 won and July 14, 2016

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 4, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment to the Defendant with a lease deposit of KRW 45 million, KRW 45 million per month (payment on November 14, 201), and the lease term of KRW 450,000 per month from November 14, 2014 to November 14, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and around that time, delivered the instant apartment.

B. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent after August 14, 2015, and the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to “a termination of the said lease agreement on the grounds of overdue delay” to the Defendant around January 2016, and the Defendant consented thereto.

C. On January 16, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C and the instant apartment with a term of KRW 125 million as to the lease deposit and the term of the lease from February 15, 2016 to February 14, 2018. The Plaintiff received KRW 12.5 million as the contract deposit from C at the time of the said agreement.

In January 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million to the Defendant as part of the lease deposit, and explained that the Defendant should deliver the instant apartment on February 15, 2016 according to a new lease agreement.

E. The Defendant did not deliver the instant apartment by February 15, 2016 to the Plaintiff, and the new lessee C, on March 7, 2016, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 25 million in total amount of damages equivalent to the down payment and the down payment, claiming that the Plaintiff incurred losses due to the Plaintiff’s failure to implement the lease agreement.

On August 6, 2016, a decision to recommend reconciliation was finalized on August 6, 2016, stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 20 million to C by August 12, 2016.”

(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute between the Jeonju District Court 2016Kadan661. [Ground for Recognition], Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the judgment on the claim for India, rent, etc., the instant lease agreement was terminated by agreement around January 2016.

As such, it is special.

arrow