(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.27 2015가단5199191

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.27 2015가단5199191

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the non-party Korea Land and Housing Corporation the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 5, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Land and Housing Corporation”) by setting the lease deposit amount to KRW 17,572,00, monthly rent to KRW 115,320, and the lease period from March 5, 2014 to April 30, 2016.

B. On March 7, 2014, in order to secure the Plaintiff’s obligation while obtaining a loan from the Plaintiff, the Defendant transferred the right to refund the lease deposit to Nonparty Corporation under the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff, and notified Nonparty Corporation of the said assignment by mail verifying the content of the said assignment on the same day. The notification reached Nonparty Corporation around that time.

C. On March 11, 2014, the Defendant was given a loan of KRW 17,500,000 from the Plaintiff by setting the maturity date on April 30, 2016 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum.

At the time, the Defendant agreed to deliver the building to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff, even within the lease term under the instant lease agreement, so that the Plaintiff may directly refund the lease deposit from the lessor, if the Defendant could not repay the principal and interest of the loan by the due date or the due date for the repayment of the loan.

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). D.

On the other hand, the defendant did not pay interest on the above loan and lost the benefit of the time limit on June 23, 2015.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. According to the above facts, the defendant has lost the interest of the time limit for the above loan. Thus, according to the agreement of this case, the non-party designated by the plaintiff is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the non-party.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.01.26 2017가단109272

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.08.17 2018가단102315

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2021.02.18 2020가단3361

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2021.02.16 2020가단5626

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.04.26 2018가단109316