logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.10.30 2018가단4406
건물명도 등
Text

1. Of the buildings listed in the attached list, the Defendant points out each of the following items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1:

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 4, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a lease agreement with the Defendant on the terms of 4, 200,000,000 won for lease deposit, and the term of lease from October 30, 2012 to October 29, 2014, with respect to the stores located in the attached list with each point of Section 1, 2, 3, 403, 44, and 49.587 square meters in order of each point of Section 1 (hereinafter “instant store”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Defendant was handed over the instant store at that time.

B. Even after the expiration of the lease agreement of this case, the Defendant continued to possess and use the instant store. However, on December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff sent the content-certified mail containing the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement to the Defendant, and thereafter, the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant.

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

2. As to the lawsuit of this case against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff’s judgment on the ground of the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant is not a party to the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant is not a party to the instant lease agreement.

The plaintiff's standing to sue in the action for the performance of the Doldae- pursuant to the theory of performance is replaced by the judgment as to the propriety of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da11848, Jun. 12, 1992). As long as the plaintiff claims that the defendant is the lessee, the defendant's standing to sue is recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion was implicitly renewed after the termination of the contract term, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease contract on December 22, 2017. As such, the instant lease agreement was concluded on June 22, 2018, which was six months thereafter.

arrow