logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.10.04 2016나50662
건물명도
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2011, C leased 11.4 square meters of the instant store from D, the former owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant store”) as indicated in the attached Table, for a fixed period of two years from March 31, 2011, from the said store. On September 2, 2011, C leased the remainder of 11.4 square meters of the instant store from the said D store until April 10, 201, by setting the deposit amount of KRW 25 million, monthly rent of KRW 70,000,000, and the lease period of April 10, 2013.

B. C, on March 27, 2012, without D’s consent, sub-leases part of the instant store to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000, and the previous rent period of KRW 12 months from March 27, 2012.

C. On May 8, 2012, the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with C on the operation of the instant store (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”) and operated a water sales business with the trade name “E” at the instant store, and jointly uses and benefits from the instant store.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff purchased the instant store from D on March 5, 2013 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 3, 2013 with respect to the instant store based on the said sale.

E. On April 12, 2013, C re-leased the instant store from the Plaintiff by setting the deposit amount of KRW 75 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000, and the lease period from April 4, 2013 to March 31, 2015.

F. On July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C to request the delivery of the instant store on the ground of the expiration of the lease agreement term, and was sentenced to the judgment that “C shall deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff on April 1, 2016 (Seoul District Court 2014Da11675),” and the judgment became final and conclusive by withdrawing the said appeal on October 22, 2015.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 3-1 through 4, Gap’s evidence 4, Eul’s evidence 1-1, 2, Eul’s evidence 2 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is at C and the store of this case on April 12, 2013.

arrow