logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.23 2018가단5275065
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) an indication of the Attached Form No. 1, B, C, D, E among the underground floors of the building listed in the Attached List;

Reasons

Examining the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of claim Gap's evidence Nos. 2 and 3 in light of the overall purport of the pleadings, it is acknowledged that on January 1, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter "lease agreement") with the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) among the first floor of the underground floors of the building listed in the attached Table Nos. 151.35m2 (a) in line with the following points; (b) the lease deposit amount of KRW 26,535,600 (hereinafter "the instant store"); (c) the lease deposit amount of KRW 3,618,080 (excluding value-added tax); (d) the management fee of KRW 2,037,640 (excluding value-added tax); (e) the lease agreement was concluded between January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018; and (e) the Plaintiff did not pay the following documents to the Defendant on the ground that the instant lease agreement was completely terminated.

According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was terminated on September 30, 2018 by the Plaintiff’s termination, and it is confirmed that the rent after the termination of the instant lease agreement would be the same amount as the rent stipulated in the instant lease agreement.

In the absence of special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and pay the Plaintiff the rent, management fee, or amount equivalent thereto calculated by the ratio of KRW 6,221,292 [Attachment 3,618,080 x 1.0 x 2,037,640 x 1.1] from January 1, 2018 to the date the delivery of the instant store is completed.

The defendant's assertion and its judgment on this issue are asserted to the purport that since approximately 45 square meters out of the store of this case occupy C corporation rather than the defendant, the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable.

However, as in this case, if the lessor seeks the return of the leased object as the restitution due to the termination of the lease contract, the lessee.

arrow