(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.02.06 2014나12704

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 2015.02.06 2014나12704

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 16, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to the Defendant as KRW 10,000,000 for the term of lease from March 16, 2012 to March 15, 2014, and KRW 480,00 for the rent month (prepaid payment on March 16, 2012).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

From November 16, 2013 to February 16, 2014, the Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 1,920,000 for four months. On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to deliver the instant real estate by March 15, 2014 when the Defendant notified the Defendant of his intent to terminate the instant lease agreement.

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

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the Defendant did not delay the rent for at least two months, and the Plaintiff expressed its intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on this ground, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on February 26, 2014, which received the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease agreement, and as long as the instant lease agreement was terminated, the Defendant occupied the instant real estate without title and made unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 480,00 per month from March 17, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate, which was sought by the Plaintiff after the termination date of the instant lease agreement.

3. The defendant's assertion that the lease contract was renewed in accordance with the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, since the defendant invested a lot of expenses such as construction of interior works on the real estate of this case, and the plaintiff demanded renewal of the lease contract before the termination of the lease contract.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant requested the renewal of the lease contract, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.07.04 2017가단18225

-서울동부지방법원 2021.01.08 2020가합100244

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.10.20 2016가합5037

-수원지방법원 2019.05.23 2018나67565