(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.07.17 2017가단532450

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) 수원지방법원 2018.07.17 2017가단532450

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The defendant shall give order to the plaintiff each point of the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the one story of real estate listed in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 8, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with regard to the part on the ship (A) (hereinafter “instant store”) that connects each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 on the real estate listed in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff as follows.

From June 8, 2011, the Defendant used the instant store from the monthly rent of KRW 750,000,000, and on June 22, 201, the time for rent payment is deemed to have been paid first, and some of it seems to have been a prepaid concept.

Contract deposit of KRW 15 million for 24 months: Value-added tax and management expenses (90,000 won including value-added tax and management expenses)

B. The above lease was implicitly renewed on the same condition two occasions.

C. The Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff from September 2015, as the vehicle under the above lease agreement.

C. The Defendant removed the instant store on June 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Since the defendant did not pay more than three rents, the plaintiff should terminate the lease contract of this case.

The Defendant shall deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.

Since the Defendant did not pay from September 2015 the rent to the Plaintiff, it shall pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the overdue rent or unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 825,00 per month from that time to the date of eviction.

B. The judgment on the claim for delivery did not delay that it was three or more times pursuant to the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff recognized that the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on the grounds thereof, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's claim for this part is justified.

C. 1 The Defendant did not pay rent from September 8, 2015 to June 8, 2017, or the instant case.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.04.04 2016가단41071

-부산지방법원 2015.05.12 2014가단18823

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.09.01 2015가단20502

-춘천지방법원 2019.09.04 2019가단2417

-창원지방법원 2019.01.25 2018나3353