logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.06.16 2019가단117294
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant for the lease of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 700,000,00,000, and from March 31, 2017 to March 31, 2019, with the area of KRW 19.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) that connects each point of the attached drawings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list with the Defendant, and the Defendant run real estate brokerage business by leasing the instant building from around that time.

B. On September 18, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted an agreement with the Plaintiff that “The instant lease agreement shall be maintained until March 31, 2019, and the lease agreement shall be concluded again based on the market price that the deposit and monthly rent after the expiration of the contract, but the lease term shall be limited to five years. The Defendant shall not transfer real estate to a third party by sub-lease or delegation. In the event of the Defendant’s violation, it shall pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff as a penalty for penalty.”

C. From December 2018, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to renew the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff will go to the Defendant around February 2019.

Based on the agreement of subsection (d), there was an intention to enter into a lease agreement of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million, and the defendant notified that the lease agreement will be terminated if the defendant does not comply with it.

The defendant asserts the renewal of the contract under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and pays the previous monthly rent up to now, and continues to use the building in this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A 1 to 5, Evidence B 1 to the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement with the Defendant was terminated on March 31, 2019, and the Defendant agreed to conclude a re-contract according to the market price at the time of the Defendant’s wish. Since the Defendant refused to conclude a re-contract meeting the market price, the instant lease agreement was concluded on March 31, 2019.

arrow