logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.20 2016나8519
건물명도 등
Text

1. It shall order the payment of the money of the first instance judgment in excess of the money ordered to be paid below.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Around 2002, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant part (a) part (a) of 19 square meters in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 7, 8, and 1 among the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached Table No. 2002 and renewed the contract. On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff determined that the instant building was leased to the Defendant as KRW 10,000,000 from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015, with the term of lease of KRW 1,00,000 from December 31, 2013 to December 31, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The defendant does not pay rent after February 1, 2015.

C. On November 6, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written notification that revokes the instant lease agreement by content-certified mail on the grounds of the rent delay, and the said mail sent to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated by the Defendant’s notice of termination on the grounds of the leased body, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 1,100,000 per month from February 1, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the said building.

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that the rent from January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2015 was not paid from the preparatory documents submitted by the trial on February 29, 2016 to February 1, 2015, and that the rent from January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2015 was already paid. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for rent from January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2015 cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim before receiving the amount of money equivalent to the premium paid to the lessee at the time of leasing the instant building from the new lessee. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s payment in arrears is the Defendant’s long-term.

arrow