(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.08 2015가단113362

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) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.08 2015가단113362

건물명도

Text

1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the buildings listed in the attached list.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Reasons

1. The following facts as to the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5.

On August 31, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a lease with Defendant B and the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) by setting the lease term of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000 for five years from August 31, 2011.

B. Defendant B, along with Defendant C and D, operated a wedding hall in the instant building.

C. From December 2014, Defendant B began to delay the rent, and even if the rent is deducted from the lease deposit, there is no remaining lease deposit.

On May 22, 2015, the copy of the complaint of this case, which notified the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of Defendant B’s delay of rent, reached Defendant B.

According to the above facts, the lease of this case was terminated as the nonperformance by Defendant B, and as the duty to restore it, Defendant B is obligated to deliver the building of this case, and the remaining Defendants shall deliver the building of this case to the Plaintiff unless they asserted and prove the right to possess the building of this case against the Plaintiffs.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants’ assertion of abuse of rights is seeking the termination of the lease of part of the wedding. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim is an abuse of rights since it has no practical benefit in filing the instant lawsuit, as long as the Plaintiff did not actually operate the entire wedding shop. However, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that he would deliver the building of this case at the same time with the return of the lease deposit, and there is no remaining lease deposit, and this argument is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.07.30 2015가단8840

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.11.25 2016가단18752

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.06.28 2017가단2796

-수원지방법원안산지원 2020.02.14 2019가단14004