logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2019.05.30 2019가단46
건물명도(인도)
Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver one story retail store of 87.3 square meters among the buildings listed in the attached list;

(b) 9,600,000 Won;

Reasons

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff is the owner of real estate listed in the separate sheet. On January 8, 2016, the plaintiff leased the above real estate with the term "five million won for contract deposit, eight million won for monthly rent, and 60 months for the lease term" (hereinafter "the lease contract in this case"). The defendant occupied the commercial building in this case delivered from the plaintiff around the above time, and operated convenience stores (C). The defendant did not pay rent from January 7, 2018. The plaintiff expressed his intention to terminate the lease contract with content-certified mail to the defendant on January 7, 2019, and the above lease contract was terminated and terminated at that time. Thus, the above lease contract was terminated.

(Order) Even if the Defendant was unable to directly receive the above content-certified mail, the copy of the complaint of this case, including the expression of termination, was served on the Defendant on January 14, 2019, and at least at the time the copy of the complaint was served, the lease contract of this case was terminated at the time of delivery of the copy of the complaint. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the commercial building of this case to the Plaintiff, who is a lessor and owner, and to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid rent of KRW 9.6 million (=8 million x 12 months) and the unpaid rent of KRW 9.6 million from January 8, 2019 to the date the delivery of the commercial building of this case is completed.

[On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the lease contract of this case was made formally in order to operate a convenience store without legal effect after the closing of argument in this case, but it is insufficient to reverse the validity of the disposition document of No. 1 on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the defendant (the plaintiff is the plaintiff's deceptive act, even if the record is submitted by the defendant).

arrow