(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.11.01 2016가단18248

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) 대전지방법원 2016.11.01 2016가단18248

건물인도 등

Text

1. The Defendant’s month from October 28, 201 to the completion date of delivery of the building indicated in the attached Form from October 28, 2016 to 10 million won.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant as to the building indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) with a deposit of KRW 10 million, KRW 400,000 per month, and KRW 400,00 per month, and the term of lease from August 28, 2015 to February 27, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). According to the said lease agreement, the Plaintiff may terminate the lease agreement if he/she is the Defendant’s arrears, and the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent from December 28, 2015 to June 20, 2016, and the instant written complaint contains the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement, which became clear that the lease agreement reached the Defendant on June 20, 2016.

B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of the remainder after deducting the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from KRW 10,000 to KRW 400,000 per month from KRW 10,000 of the lease deposit to KRW 10,000 from December 28, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building.

2. Judgment on the defense

A. On June 21, 2016, the following day after the Defendant was served with the duplicate of the instant complaint, the Defendant raised a defense to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff is not a delinquent vehicle.

B. As seen earlier, as long as the instant lease agreement was terminated on June 20, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff even if the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the overdue charge on the following day. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that there is no obligation to deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant is unacceptable.

C. However, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Defendant on October 27, 2016.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.12.15 2017나22225

-서울북부지방법원 2018.11.30 2018가단7327

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.24 2020가단5172343

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.03.25 2014가단21685

-대전지방법원천안지원 2017.11.29 2017가단107946