logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.05.04 2018가단1178
건물인도 등
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) From February 1, 2018:

buildings described in paragraph (1);

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a rental deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million, and KRW 1.6 million (the monthly rent shall accrue from January 1, 2017, and shall be paid at the beginning of each month), the term of the contract from December 19, 2016 to December 19, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease contract”) with respect to the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) around December 2016; although the Defendant paid the monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million until June 2017, the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the instant lease contract between the parties, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff did not pay the monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million and the monthly rent of KRW 1.6 million until July 31, 2018.

Thus, the instant lease contract was terminated on January 26, 2018, when the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the money calculated by the ratio of KRW 1.6 million per month from February 1, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building, as the Plaintiff seeks (the Plaintiff deducteds the unpaid monthly rent from the rental deposit for the part of January 2018).

2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that, while leasing the instant building, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million to the lessee as premium, and that, after receiving the instant building from the former lessee, the Plaintiff should pay KRW 5 million with the cost of repairing the building, such as toilet, etc., the Plaintiff should pay the said amount to the Defendant.

B. However, in the case of the termination of a contract due to the delinquency in monthly rent, there is no room for applying the provisions on protection of premium collection guarantee stipulated in Article 10-4 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and according to the evidence No. 2, the Defendant bears the duty to restore to the Defendant under the instant lease agreement.

arrow