(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.06.26 2014가단46313

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.06.26 2014가단46313

건물명도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver a total of 80.69 square meters of one story among the real estate listed in the attached list;

B. June 19, 2014

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 11, 2006, the Defendant leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from C as the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,420,00 (including value-added tax, payment on January 18, 200), and the period from January 11, 2006 to 24 months.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The contract of the instant lease agreement states that “The contract shall be at will of the owner at the time of the unpaid rent for three months” as a warning sign (hereinafter referred to as “the contract”).

C. On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from C, and succeeded to the lessor’s status of the instant lease agreement.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 in the evidence, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) prior to the purchase of the instant real estate, the Defendant had been in arrears for more than two occasions; and (b) the Plaintiff had been in arrears for more than three consecutive years due to the Plaintiff’s continuous delinquency in payment; (c) thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant lease was terminated by delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint; and (d) the Defendant sought reimbursement of KRW 2,420,000 per month as rent and unjust enrichment from May 19, 2014 until the delivery of the instant real estate is completed.

In regard to this, although the Defendant did not pay the two years of arrears to the previous lessor C, the Plaintiff did not inform the Plaintiff of the account to transfer rent after the Plaintiff became a lessor, and remitted rent to September 30, 2014 after the Plaintiff became aware of the Plaintiff’s account. Since the Defendant’s failure to pay rent was due to the fact that the Plaintiff and the building administrator interfered with the Defendant’s business by filing an accusation against the Gu office, etc., the termination of the Plaintiff’s contract is unfair. Meanwhile, as long as the Defendant did not recover the premium from the new lessee, etc., the Plaintiff cannot deliver the building.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.09.06 2015가단46270

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.03.19 2019가단111154

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.26 2016나26555

-의정부지방법원 2017.12.21 2016가단127497

-제주지방법원 2021.01.11 2020가단57389