logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.07.26 2018가단55120
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. Of the second floor of the building attached to the attached list, the Defendant has each of the following subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

1) On April 17, 2012, the Defendant, among the second floor of the attached list building owned by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff on April 17, 2012, the part (a) on the ship (201; hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) connected in sequence each point of Annex 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 1.

) The lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 150,000 (payment on April 17), and the lease term of KRW 24 months from April 17, 2012 (hereinafter “the lease of this case”).

(2) The Defendant paid only the rent by November 17, 2012, and thereafter did not pay the rent thereafter.

3. Accordingly, on October 12, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that “the above lease contract shall be terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent,” and around that time, the above content-certified mail reached the Defendant.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the lease of this case is lawfully terminated by the termination of the plaintiff's termination on the grounds of the defendant's second or more overdue rent, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defense

A. The defendant's defense that the defendant did not pay the rent to the plaintiff constitutes a legitimate ground that the plaintiff did not pay the rent to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff did not pay the rent to the plaintiff, at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract of this case, the plaintiff's termination of the contract of this case is unlawful, since the plaintiff's refusal of repair was due to the occurrence of the problem of fung fung fung in the mouth between the main bank and the small bank.

B. The plaintiff's assertion of the defendant's defense is that the defendant requested repair due to indoor habit and mycoto, and the defendant should carry out the construction work, so the director's fee should be reduced.

arrow