(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.16 2015가단157581

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.16 2015가단157581

건물인도 등

Text

1. The defendant's point of each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet is indicated in the separate sheet (2), (3), (0), (9), and (2).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2007, the Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on the terms that the Plaintiffs set up a lease agreement between the Defendant and the terms that the Plaintiffs set as KRW 2,3,00,000,000,000 for lease deposit, KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from November 5, 2007 to November 4, 2008, on the part of the ship connected with each of the items in sequence, as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant renewed the instant commercial building lease agreement under the same conditions for three years. On November 4, 2010, the lease period from November 5, 2010 to November 4, 2012, and the monthly rent is KRW 80,000,000.

C. After that, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant stating that “The Plaintiff shall rent the instant commercial building in KRW 800,000 from November 5, 2012 to November 4, 2015” (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Plaintiffs expressed their intent to refuse to renew the instant lease agreement to the Defendant on August 10, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above findings of the determination on the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period, so the defendant is obligated to deliver the commercial building of this case to the plaintiffs, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Although the Defendant’s assertion is given the opportunity to recover the premium under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, the Plaintiffs are obstructing the Defendant from seeking a new lessee by unfairly demanding the eviction of the building of this case, even though there is no risk of safety accidents in order to avoid the duty to protect the said premium.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.01 2016나13634

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.04.21 2016가합100983

-부산지방법원 2018.12.20 2018나53245

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.07.05 2017가합11040

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.24 2019가단5065210