(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.01.23 2017가단230887

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 2019.01.23 2017가단230887

건물명도(인도)

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. The payment of KRW 20,000,000 is received from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. 1) On August 15, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant indicated on the attached list owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) As to the lease deposit, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the term of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 980,000, and the term of lease from August 31, 2011 to August 30, 2013, and received KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant. (2) around August 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant increased the rent of KRW 1,080,000 and renewed the said lease agreement. The details of the last lease agreement entered into on September 1, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) are 20,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,080,000, and the term of lease from August 30, 2016 to August 30, 2017.

There is a provision that, from the initial lease agreement to the instant lease agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the term “it is impossible to claim to the lessor the premium” as a special agreement (hereinafter “the instant special agreement”).

3) On July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to refuse the renewal of the instant lease agreement to the Defendant by proving the content thereof. (4) The Defendant is occupying and using the instant real estate while operating a restaurant under the trade name of “C”.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of the determination on the request for extradition, the instant lease was terminated on August 30, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances.

As to this, the Defendant asserted that it cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition until the Plaintiff was returned KRW 20,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff, it is the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Defendant received KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant based on the instant lease agreement is the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2020.04.22 2019나52891

-서울북부지방법원 2018.10.16 2018가단11173

-대전지방법원 2015.08.27 2014가단34598

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.02.09 2016가단50102

-대구지방법원 2017.09.12 2016가단29446