(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.02.14 2016가단26700

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.02.14 2016가단26700

건물명도

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2010, the network D’s lease contract has been continuously renewed (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”) to the Defendant at KRW 5 million and monthly rent of KRW 5,50,000,000,000,000 for stores 101, 101,000,000,000,000 for stores 1,00,000,000,000,000.

B. The Defendant did not pay the rent from April 2014 to December 2014, and paid the rent from January 2015 to June 2015, and did not pay the rent from July 2015.

C. The network D died on August 25, 2014, and the Plaintiff, E, and F, who are children of the network D, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on June 24, 2015, based on inheritance on August 25, 2014, with respect to one third of the instant stores.

Around August 2016, the plaintiff sent a certificate of content that demands the defendant to pay approximately KRW 7.5 million of the rent sealed to the defendant, but the defendant does not pay the rent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is one of the deceased’s successors, and the instant lease agreement becomes null and void due to the Defendant’s failure to pay rent from April 2014 to December 2014, and the Defendant asserts that the instant lease agreement should be delivered to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is an exercise of the right to claim the termination of the instant lease agreement and the right to claim the exclusion of interference based on the ownership, which is based on the delayed rent payment, and is deemed to be a claim for the delivery of the instant store.

In addition, the Plaintiff sought payment of 7,650,000 won from July 2015 to August 2016.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff, E, and F were the co-inheritors of the network D, and the Plaintiff, E, and E, and E, and the instant store have completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the three shares in the above three names as to each of the above 1/3 shares due to inheritance is as seen earlier.

However, in full view of the contents of No. 3, E among the children of the network D, taking account of the overall purport of the argument.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2015.01.27 2014가단15247

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.27 2014가단178925

-대구지방법원경주지원 2016.01.19 2015가단2976

-부산지방법원 2016.10.18 2015가단219579

-춘천지방법원 2016.12.22 2016가단52671