logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.04.26 2017나55237
임대료
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 29, 2011, the Defendant leased from the Plaintiff the land of 36 square meters in Nam-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant land”) for a parking lot, with a monthly rent of KRW 60,000,000 from September 1, 201 to August 31, 2012, on condition that the term of the contract may be extended under mutual agreement.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

From September 201 to October 7, 2015, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1770,000 as the rent.

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 31, 2016, and the rent was caused by KRW 60,000 per month. The Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 2,370,000 from 2011 to 2016,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant lease agreement was terminated on August 31, 2016, and the instant land was parked without permission, and the Defendant failed to use part of the instant land as a parking lot, thereby reducing the Plaintiff’s rent at KRW 30,000 per month. Since the Defendant paid all the rent to the Plaintiff during the lease term, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the rent.

3. Determination

A. In addition to the evidence and the purport of the entire argument in the statement No. B, prior to the termination of the instant lease agreement, the instant lease agreement is concluded between September 1, 201 and August 31, 2012 regarding the term of lease, and mutual extension is agreed upon.

In fact, the Defendant uses the instant land and is the Plaintiff on the premise that the instant lease contract is maintained even after August 31, 2012.

arrow