(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.01.17 2016나11608

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) 인천지방법원 2017.01.17 2016나11608

시설물인도 등

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. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following dismissal or addition, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court is " July 1, 2015" in Part 12 of the judgment of the second instance as " July 21, 2015."

In the same section, the following shall be added to paragraph 13:

Article 10 (1) 1 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act can be applied to the lease agreement of this case even if the lessee has been in arrears with the amount equivalent to the rent of three years, the lessor may refuse the lessee’s demand for renewal of the lease agreement. As seen earlier, the Defendant may refuse the Plaintiff’s demand for renewal of the lease agreement since July 1, 2015, and the overdue period is at least three years. As such, the Plaintiff’s demand for renewal of the lease agreement of this case terminated on October 31, 2015. Accordingly, the Defendant’s demand for termination of the lease contract of this case is deemed to have expired on October 31, 2015. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that there was a justifiable reason because the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff a rent because it was an inevitable option for the Plaintiff to prove the contents of the agreement of the lease agreement of this case and to comply with the guarantee deposit, but as long as the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason for the Defendant’s delay.

For the same reason, “The foregoing is the same as the previous one, and even if the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is applied, the fact that the instant lease contract has expired on October 31, 2015 due to the following three or more years of the defendant’s delay,” is the same.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-상가건물 임대차보호법

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.02.10 2016나11592

-대법원 2021. 5. 27. 선고 2020다263635, 263642 판결

-울산지방법원 2014.4.16.선고 2013가단25117 판결

-울산지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단62411

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2021.02.16 2020가단216419