(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.10.01 2015가단515726

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) 광주지방법원 2015.10.01 2015가단515726

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant is paid KRW 10 million from the plaintiff and at the same time, the building stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff leased a building listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) to the Defendant as KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 750,000, and the period from June 10, 2010 to June 9, 2013.

The plaintiff delivered the above building to the defendant around that time, and received deposit KRW 10 million from the defendant, and the defendant started real estate brokerage business in the above building.

Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have renewed the lease relationship of the instant building. On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she had no intention to continue the lease relationship and that he/she would deliver the instant building.

Around October 2014, the Defendant was a director of the instant building and thereafter did not run the business in the instant building. From April 2015, the Defendant did not pay a monthly rent.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the fact of the above recognition as to the claim for delivery of the entire purport of the pleadings, the lease relationship of the building of this case is terminated, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that the lease period has been renewed by June 9, 2016 pursuant to Article 10 (4) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, but Article 10 (2) of the same Act provides that the lessee's right to request renewal can only be exercised within the extent that the whole lease period including the initial lease period does not exceed five years, so the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the defendant asserts that he cannot accept the plaintiff's claim until he receives the refund of KRW 10 million. Thus, since the defendant's obligation to deliver the leased object and the obligation to return the deposit when the lease relationship is terminated, the above argument of the defendant is justified.

Therefore, the defendant is worth KRW 10 million from the plaintiff.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법 제10조 제4항

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2018.01.26 2017가단2716

-서울동부지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단107497

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2021.02.10 2020가단4053

-광주지방법원 2016.05.24 2015가단35947

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.01.10 2018가단4767